, QUESTION 1
Jordaan v Road Accident Fund (2022/03746) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1260 (3 October 2023)
In Jordaan v Road Accident Fund, the plaintiff, Jeanine Maria Jordaan, claimed damages arising from a
motor vehicle accident that occurred on 5 May 2018. She sought compensation for her own injuries and
for the loss of support suffered by her two minor children following the death of the family's
breadwinner. The RAF accepted liability for the accident by conceding that the negligence of its insured
driver was the sole cause.
Initially, the plaintiff's particulars of claim indicated a total claim of R2 million for personal injuries and
loss of support. However, a day before the default judgment hearing, the plaintiff served a Rule 28
notice to amend the quantum claimed to R8.85 million. The revised claim included R5 million for past
and future medical expenses, loss of earnings, and general damages, and R3.8 million for loss of support.
Answer to Question 1:
The judgment in Jordaan v Road Accident Fund (2022/03746) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1260 (delivered by
Opperman AJ) exemplifies critical procedural and substantive issues in Road Accident Fund (RAF)
litigation under the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 (as amended), particularly in the context of
default judgment applications, late quantum amendments via Rule 28 of the Uniform Rules of Court,
evidentiary burdens in unopposed matters, and the assessment of multiple heads of damage (personal
injury including general damages, past/future medical expenses, loss of earnings, and derivative loss of
support for minors).
The accident on 5 May 2018 resulted in the plaintiff's personal injuries and the death of the
breadwinner, triggering both direct delictual claims and derivative claims for the two minor children.
The RAF's concession of 100% liability on merits (sole negligence of insured driver) simplified the matter
to quantum determination only. The initial summons pleaded a modest R2 million total, but a Rule 28(1)
notice of intention to amend, served mere hours before the default judgment hearing, escalated the
claim to R8.85 million. This breakdown included approximately R5 million for the plaintiff's personal
injury heads (past/future medical expenses, loss of earnings/capacity, general damages) and R3.8 million
for loss of support.
In default judgment proceedings (Rule 31(2)), the court is not bound to grant the claimed amount
mechanically; it must satisfy itself that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case on quantum
through admissible evidence (affidavits, expert reports). Opperman AJ scrutinised the amendment and
required substantiation despite the unopposed nature, highlighting judicial caution against inflated or
unsubstantiated claims in RAF matters. The case underscores the RAF's statutory role as a social security
fund (s 17), balancing claimant access to compensation with fiscal sustainability. It also illustrates
common law principles of delictual damages (wrongfulness, fault, causation, harm) applied within the
RAF framework, with reference to foundational authorities like Union Government v Lee 1924 AD 202
(loss of support) and Sandler v Wholesale Suppliers Ltd 1941 AD 194 (expert evidence reliability). The
judgment reinforces that even in default, plaintiffs bear the onus to prove each head via reliable, non-
Jordaan v Road Accident Fund (2022/03746) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1260 (3 October 2023)
In Jordaan v Road Accident Fund, the plaintiff, Jeanine Maria Jordaan, claimed damages arising from a
motor vehicle accident that occurred on 5 May 2018. She sought compensation for her own injuries and
for the loss of support suffered by her two minor children following the death of the family's
breadwinner. The RAF accepted liability for the accident by conceding that the negligence of its insured
driver was the sole cause.
Initially, the plaintiff's particulars of claim indicated a total claim of R2 million for personal injuries and
loss of support. However, a day before the default judgment hearing, the plaintiff served a Rule 28
notice to amend the quantum claimed to R8.85 million. The revised claim included R5 million for past
and future medical expenses, loss of earnings, and general damages, and R3.8 million for loss of support.
Answer to Question 1:
The judgment in Jordaan v Road Accident Fund (2022/03746) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1260 (delivered by
Opperman AJ) exemplifies critical procedural and substantive issues in Road Accident Fund (RAF)
litigation under the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 (as amended), particularly in the context of
default judgment applications, late quantum amendments via Rule 28 of the Uniform Rules of Court,
evidentiary burdens in unopposed matters, and the assessment of multiple heads of damage (personal
injury including general damages, past/future medical expenses, loss of earnings, and derivative loss of
support for minors).
The accident on 5 May 2018 resulted in the plaintiff's personal injuries and the death of the
breadwinner, triggering both direct delictual claims and derivative claims for the two minor children.
The RAF's concession of 100% liability on merits (sole negligence of insured driver) simplified the matter
to quantum determination only. The initial summons pleaded a modest R2 million total, but a Rule 28(1)
notice of intention to amend, served mere hours before the default judgment hearing, escalated the
claim to R8.85 million. This breakdown included approximately R5 million for the plaintiff's personal
injury heads (past/future medical expenses, loss of earnings/capacity, general damages) and R3.8 million
for loss of support.
In default judgment proceedings (Rule 31(2)), the court is not bound to grant the claimed amount
mechanically; it must satisfy itself that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case on quantum
through admissible evidence (affidavits, expert reports). Opperman AJ scrutinised the amendment and
required substantiation despite the unopposed nature, highlighting judicial caution against inflated or
unsubstantiated claims in RAF matters. The case underscores the RAF's statutory role as a social security
fund (s 17), balancing claimant access to compensation with fiscal sustainability. It also illustrates
common law principles of delictual damages (wrongfulness, fault, causation, harm) applied within the
RAF framework, with reference to foundational authorities like Union Government v Lee 1924 AD 202
(loss of support) and Sandler v Wholesale Suppliers Ltd 1941 AD 194 (expert evidence reliability). The
judgment reinforces that even in default, plaintiffs bear the onus to prove each head via reliable, non-
