IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT
CASE NO.: 2866/2009
In the matter between:
ELIZABETH LEGODI PLAINTIFF
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND DEFENDANT
 The plaintiff, Elizabeth Legodi sued the Road Accident Fund, the defendant, for
patrimonial and general damages. When the matter came before my brother Gura J on
19 September 2011 he granted, by agreement, judgment for the payment of her
patrimonial loss and postponed the claim for general damages sine die.
 The matter was re-enrolled for hearing on 9 July 2012 and came before me as
regards the prayer for general damages. The defendant who had been represented at
the previous hearing was not represented at this hearing. The attorneys for the
defendant, who were contacted, informed Mr Swart, who appeared for the plaintiff then
and before me, that they had no instructions in the matter.
 The special pleas were to be argued. But in the absence of counsel for the
defendant and in the absence of an application for leave to file the special pleas late I
heard the matter by default.
 Mr Swart and his attorney placed it on record that the parties had agreed that the
question of general damages would be argued on the medical and other reports as the
defendants had not filed any notice to call any experts.
 Before considering the matter further I engaged Mr Swart about the report
relating to whether the plaintiff had suffered serious injuries as contemplated by
Regulation 3 of the Regulations promulgated in terms of the Road Accident Fund Act 56
of 1996. Mr Swart handed up a letter which prima facie demonstrates that DA
Dibakwane Attorneys had lodged various reports, requested by the defendant, including
one by Dr Theo Enslin, with the defendant on 6 September 2011. The reports by Dr
Enslin, which have been filed, are a completed RAF Form 4 and a typed report. After
hearing Mr Swart on this aspect and debating whether I could hear the matter, I agreed
to hear arguments on the merits of the claim for general damages and to reserve
judgment on all aspects.
 I am satisfied that regardless of whether the summons should make an averment,
(which this summons does not make) that the plaintiff complies with the Act read with
Regulation 3 or whether the plaintiff may satisfy the court in some other way that the
regulation has been complied with, there is no proof before me that the RAF Form 4
report has been accepted and that the defendant is satisfied that the injury has been
correctly assessed as serious. See Regulation 3(3)(c). The fact that the Form has been
lodged is not indicative that the defendant is satisfied as contemplated by the sub
regulation. The defendant is obliged to accept or reject the report. If the report is
rejected certain extra curial or curial remedies may be employed. But these steps must
lead either to the replacement of the rejection or the dismissal of the grounds of
 As matters stand there is no evidence before me which shows that the defendant
is satisfied that injury has been correctly assessed as serious. If the defendant has
indeed signified its satisfaction, I would require Dr Enslin to give viva voce testimony
regarding his reasons for finding that the consequences of the injuries sustained by the
plaintiff constitute “serious long-term impairment or loss of a body function”.
 In the result I make the following order:
1 The action is postponed to a date to be arranged by the registrar for:
(a) proof that the defendant is satisfied that the injuries have been
correctly assessed as serious; and
(b) if so, the viva voce testimony of Dr Theo Enslin.
2. The costs are reserved.
A A LANDMAN
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
DATE OF HEARING : 09 JULY 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 19 JULY 2012
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF : ADV SWART
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT : NO APPEARANCE
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF : KGOMO MOKHETLE & TLOU
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT : STATE ATTORNEY