Court rejects R2.8m RAF claim after contradictory accounts of job loss

A North West High Court judge has dismissed a man’s claim of almost R2.9 million for past and future loss of earnings against the Road Accident Fund (RAF), finding that contradictory explanations for his dismissal meant he failed to prove a causal link between the accident and his job loss.

What the court decided

Acting Judge M Wessels dismissed Oaitse Comfort Letsholonyane’s loss of earnings claim, quantified at R2 877 965. The court ordered the RAF to cover future medical costs for a right elbow injury sustained in the crash, but declined to grant the large earnings award.

How the dispute arose

The judgment records that Letsholonyane was driving a Toyota Tazz on 26 June 2022 when a Toyota Hilux driven by Kagiso Oabile Phetew collided head-on with his vehicle. Liability, general damages of R400 000, and future medical expenses had already been settled, leaving only the loss of earnings claim for determination.

Contradictory reasons for dismissal

Central to the case was why Letsholonyane lost his job at DEKRA Automotive. Wessels noted the company’s dismissal letter dated 12 October 2023 stated:

“Based on the evidence put before me, I find you guilty as charged, due to incapacity.”

By contrast, the plaintiff’s industrial psychologist, Thomas Tsikai, recorded that Letsholonyane “was subsequently dismissed from employment due to insubordination on the 12th of October 2023.” The judge found those two accounts to be inconsistent, observing that the concept of insubordination could not be reconciled with medical incapacity.

Burden of proof and expert evidence

Wessels emphasised that the plaintiff bears the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the loss would not have occurred but for the accident. Because Letsholonyane advanced two contradictory and unclarified versions for his termination, the judge found he had failed to prove a direct causal nexus between the accident and his loss of employment.

The court also rejected the industrial psychologist’s opinion on future earning capacity, describing the symptoms Tsikai relied on as “the uncorroborated symptoms.” Wessels noted that the orthopaedic surgeon, Dr Peter Kumbirai, had diagnosed an open fracture of the right olecranon with localised pain and restricted movement and had not identified head trauma, cognitive deficits or neurological impairment that could explain the wider list of complaints.

Wessels said an expert who adopts a claimant’s self-reported complaints as medical fact and builds an earning-capacity opinion on them “oversteps the boundaries of the discipline.” Citing legal principle, the judge emphasised that expert evidence must assist the court and be properly reasoned.

Actuarial evidence and contingencies

The plaintiff’s actuarial material consisted of a single-page certificate from Dr Robert Koch, which the judge found “completely omits the basis of an actuarial valuation,” failing to disclose capitalisation rates, discount rates, contingency deductions or allocations for past versus future loss. Wessels said contingencies cannot substitute for a sound evidentiary foundation.

Medical undertaking and costs

Although the earnings claim was dismissed, Wessels accepted that the elbow injury was not in dispute and ordered the RAF to provide a statutory undertaking under section 17(4)(a) of the RAF to cover future treatment, including removal of surgical hardware, manipulation under anaesthesia and assistive devices recommended by an occupational therapist.

On costs, the judge ruled that neither party would be ordered to pay, explaining that it would be unjust to burden the defendant’s public funds with the costs of the inflated and unproven earnings claim.