LPL4802 Assignment 1
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 1 2026
(271981) - DUE 26 March
2026
,. 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. In your answer, you
should:1. Factual and Procedural Background
In Jordaan v Road Accident Fund, the plaintiff sued the Road
Accident Fund (RAF) for damages arising from a motor vehicle
collision, including personal injuries and loss of support after
the death of the family’s breadwinner. Liability for negligence
was already conceded by the RAF.
The plaintiff initially claimed R2,300,000 in her particulars of
claim but later filed a notice of amendment to increase the
quantum to nearly R8.86 million just before the default
judgment hearing. This raised serious procedural concerns about
whether the plaintiff’s case was properly defined and ready for
default judgment.
2. Procedural Handling: Default Judgment and
Rule 29
A central procedural issue was whether default judgment was
appropriate after the plaintiff substantially amended her claimed
damages:
a) Default Judgment Application
The plaintiff sought default judgment on the basis that the RAF
failed to file an appearance to defend.
However, the late amendment of the damages quantum —
nearly quadrupling the claim — raised a question whether the
case was still procedurally competent for default judgment.
b) Litis Contestatio and Close of Pleadings
, The court focused on litis contestatio — the point at which
pleadings close and issues between the parties become fixed.
Opperman AJ noted that while pleadings generally close when a
defendant enters a plea, here no plea was filed until the day
before the hearing. Consequently, the pleadings had technically
not closed, and the issues might not have been fixed in the way
required for a default judgment.
The court discussed differing authorities:
In Ngubane v Road Accident Fund, litis contestatio was held not
to have occurred without a plea, allowing amendments even late
in proceedings.
Other cases (like Olivier NO v MEC for Health) treat
substantive amendments as reopening pleadings and affecting
procedural status.
Critical lens: The court adopted a pragmatic
approach — refusing default judgment, not
simply because of rules, but because the
substantial amendment of quantum created
uncertainty about the issues to be
adjudicated. This demonstrates judicial
caution in ensuring that default judgments
are only granted where the claim is properly
defined and uncontested.
3. Assessment of Damages and Interim Payment
Application
Beyond procedural questions about pleadings, the case also
grappled with Rule 34A interim payments for RAF claims.
a) Interim Payment Application
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 1 2026
(271981) - DUE 26 March
2026
,. 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. In your answer, you
should:1. Factual and Procedural Background
In Jordaan v Road Accident Fund, the plaintiff sued the Road
Accident Fund (RAF) for damages arising from a motor vehicle
collision, including personal injuries and loss of support after
the death of the family’s breadwinner. Liability for negligence
was already conceded by the RAF.
The plaintiff initially claimed R2,300,000 in her particulars of
claim but later filed a notice of amendment to increase the
quantum to nearly R8.86 million just before the default
judgment hearing. This raised serious procedural concerns about
whether the plaintiff’s case was properly defined and ready for
default judgment.
2. Procedural Handling: Default Judgment and
Rule 29
A central procedural issue was whether default judgment was
appropriate after the plaintiff substantially amended her claimed
damages:
a) Default Judgment Application
The plaintiff sought default judgment on the basis that the RAF
failed to file an appearance to defend.
However, the late amendment of the damages quantum —
nearly quadrupling the claim — raised a question whether the
case was still procedurally competent for default judgment.
b) Litis Contestatio and Close of Pleadings
, The court focused on litis contestatio — the point at which
pleadings close and issues between the parties become fixed.
Opperman AJ noted that while pleadings generally close when a
defendant enters a plea, here no plea was filed until the day
before the hearing. Consequently, the pleadings had technically
not closed, and the issues might not have been fixed in the way
required for a default judgment.
The court discussed differing authorities:
In Ngubane v Road Accident Fund, litis contestatio was held not
to have occurred without a plea, allowing amendments even late
in proceedings.
Other cases (like Olivier NO v MEC for Health) treat
substantive amendments as reopening pleadings and affecting
procedural status.
Critical lens: The court adopted a pragmatic
approach — refusing default judgment, not
simply because of rules, but because the
substantial amendment of quantum created
uncertainty about the issues to be
adjudicated. This demonstrates judicial
caution in ensuring that default judgments
are only granted where the claim is properly
defined and uncontested.
3. Assessment of Damages and Interim Payment
Application
Beyond procedural questions about pleadings, the case also
grappled with Rule 34A interim payments for RAF claims.
a) Interim Payment Application
