, PLEASE USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDE TO ANSWER YOUR ASSIGNMENT
1. Critically discuss the judgment in Jordaan v Road Accident Fund (2022/03746) [2023]
ZAGPJHC 1260 (3 October 2023) with specific reference to the court’s approach to the
assessment and procedural handling of damages claims.
Answer 1
Material Facts and Nature of the Claims
In Jordaan v Road Accident Fund (2022/03746), Jeanine Maria Jordaan sought damages following
injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on May 5, 2018. The claim also included loss of
support due to the death of the breadwinner in the family. Initially, the plaintiff's particulars of claim
sought damages in the amount of R2,300,000.00. However, just before the hearing, the quantum was
amended to R8,856,629.99, incorporating past and future medical expenses, loss of earnings, and
loss of support1.
Court's Reasoning on Litis Contestatio and the Effect of Substantial Amendments
The court’s analysis of the stage of litis contestatio—when pleadings are considered closed and the
issues between the parties are clearly defined—was crucial to this judgment. The court found that
substantial amendments to the quantum claimed after the pleadings had initially been filed disrupted
the litis contestatio2.
Rule 29 of the Uniform Rules of Court dictates that pleadings are closed when both parties have
joined issue without introducing new matters. However, Rule 28 permits amendments to pleadings,
which, in this case, led to the reopening of pleadings and disrupted the previously defined issues3 .
The court discussed precedents such as Nkala v Harmony Gold Mining Co Ltd and Ngubane v Road
Accident Fund, affirming that such amendments can reset the stage of litis contestatio and prevent
default judgment until the defendant has an opportunity to respond4.
Rule 34A and Section 17(6) of the RAF Act: Interim Payments
The court’s treatment of Rule 34A and Section 17(6) of the RAF Act is pivotal. The plaintiff sought
an interim payment for past loss of earnings, arguing for a sum of R498,166.00. The defendant
contested this, stating that although liability for the accident was conceded, the quantum of damages
had not been fully agreed upon. This raised the issue of whether an interim payment could be granted
when liability was not conceded in full5 .
The court highlighted that Rule 34A provides a mechanism for plaintiffs to obtain interim payments,
particularly for medical costs and loss of income due to physical disability or death6 . However, as
established in previous cases such as Karpakis v Mutual & Federal Insurance Co Ltd, the court
cannot award an interim payment unless liability for the full claim, including quantum, has been
admitted7. Given that the defendant had only admitted liability for the cause of the accident, not the
full extent of damages, the court ruled that the interim payment could not be granted.
1: (Jordaan v RAF, 2023: 3)
2: (Jordaan v RAF, 2023: 6)
3: (Potgieter, Steynberg & Floyd, 2012: 185)
4: (Jordaan v RAF, 2023: 12-14)
5: (Jordaan v RAF, 2023: 23-25)
6: (Potgieter, Steynberg & Floyd, 2012: 210)
7: (Jordaan v RAF, 2023: 24)
1. Critically discuss the judgment in Jordaan v Road Accident Fund (2022/03746) [2023]
ZAGPJHC 1260 (3 October 2023) with specific reference to the court’s approach to the
assessment and procedural handling of damages claims.
Answer 1
Material Facts and Nature of the Claims
In Jordaan v Road Accident Fund (2022/03746), Jeanine Maria Jordaan sought damages following
injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on May 5, 2018. The claim also included loss of
support due to the death of the breadwinner in the family. Initially, the plaintiff's particulars of claim
sought damages in the amount of R2,300,000.00. However, just before the hearing, the quantum was
amended to R8,856,629.99, incorporating past and future medical expenses, loss of earnings, and
loss of support1.
Court's Reasoning on Litis Contestatio and the Effect of Substantial Amendments
The court’s analysis of the stage of litis contestatio—when pleadings are considered closed and the
issues between the parties are clearly defined—was crucial to this judgment. The court found that
substantial amendments to the quantum claimed after the pleadings had initially been filed disrupted
the litis contestatio2.
Rule 29 of the Uniform Rules of Court dictates that pleadings are closed when both parties have
joined issue without introducing new matters. However, Rule 28 permits amendments to pleadings,
which, in this case, led to the reopening of pleadings and disrupted the previously defined issues3 .
The court discussed precedents such as Nkala v Harmony Gold Mining Co Ltd and Ngubane v Road
Accident Fund, affirming that such amendments can reset the stage of litis contestatio and prevent
default judgment until the defendant has an opportunity to respond4.
Rule 34A and Section 17(6) of the RAF Act: Interim Payments
The court’s treatment of Rule 34A and Section 17(6) of the RAF Act is pivotal. The plaintiff sought
an interim payment for past loss of earnings, arguing for a sum of R498,166.00. The defendant
contested this, stating that although liability for the accident was conceded, the quantum of damages
had not been fully agreed upon. This raised the issue of whether an interim payment could be granted
when liability was not conceded in full5 .
The court highlighted that Rule 34A provides a mechanism for plaintiffs to obtain interim payments,
particularly for medical costs and loss of income due to physical disability or death6 . However, as
established in previous cases such as Karpakis v Mutual & Federal Insurance Co Ltd, the court
cannot award an interim payment unless liability for the full claim, including quantum, has been
admitted7. Given that the defendant had only admitted liability for the cause of the accident, not the
full extent of damages, the court ruled that the interim payment could not be granted.
1: (Jordaan v RAF, 2023: 3)
2: (Jordaan v RAF, 2023: 6)
3: (Potgieter, Steynberg & Floyd, 2012: 185)
4: (Jordaan v RAF, 2023: 12-14)
5: (Jordaan v RAF, 2023: 23-25)
6: (Potgieter, Steynberg & Floyd, 2012: 210)
7: (Jordaan v RAF, 2023: 24)
