LPL4802 Assignment 1 Semester 1 2026 (271981) Answer Guide - DUE
26 March 2026
VERIFIED AND CERTIFIED ANSWERS. WRITTEN IN REQUIRED FORMAT AND WITHIN
GIVEN GUIDELINES. IT IS GOOD TO USE AS A GUIDE AND FOR REFERENCE, NEVER
PLAGARIZE. Thank you and success in your academics.
UNISA, 2025
Contents
QUESTION 1 .......................................................................................................................................... 2
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 2
2. Material Facts and Nature of the Damages Claimed .......................................................... 2
3. Litis Contestatio and the Effect of Substantial Amendments to Quantum .................. 3
4. Rule 34A and Section 17(6) of the RAF Act: Interim Payments ...................................... 3
5. Critical Evaluation of the Court’s Approach......................................................................... 4
6. Implications for Future RAF Damages Litigation ................................................................ 5
7. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 6
Bibliography ...................................................................................................................................... 6
, QUESTION 1
Critical discussion of Jordaan v Road Accident Fund (2022/03746) [2023]
ZAGPJHC 1260
1. Introduction
The judgment in Jordaan v Road Accident Fund (2022/03746) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1260
constitutes an important contribution to the law of damages, particularly in relation to the
procedural management of Road Accident Fund (RAF) claims, the concept of litis
contestatio, and the availability of interim payments under Rule 34A of the Uniform
Rules of Court and section 17(6) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996. The case
illustrates the tension between procedural certainty and substantive justice in RAF
litigation, especially where claimants amend the quantum of damages after pleadings
have closed. This discussion critically analyses the court’s reasoning and evaluates
whether its approach strikes an appropriate balance between procedural fairness,
access to justice, and the protection of injured claimants.
2. Material Facts and Nature of the Damages Claimed
The plaintiff, Jordaan, instituted an action against the Road Accident Fund for damages
arising from bodily injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Liability was not in
dispute, and the litigation centred primarily on the assessment and procedural handling
of the plaintiff’s damages claim. The plaintiff initially quantified his damages at a
particular amount, but subsequently effected substantial amendments to the quantum
claimed, significantly increasing the amount sought.
The damages claimed included general damages for pain and suffering, as well as
patrimonial losses such as loss of earnings or earning capacity. Following these
amendments, the plaintiff sought an interim payment in terms of Rule 34A of the
Uniform Rules of Court, read together with section 17(6) of the Road Accident Fund Act.
The RAF opposed the application, arguing that litis contestatio had already been
26 March 2026
VERIFIED AND CERTIFIED ANSWERS. WRITTEN IN REQUIRED FORMAT AND WITHIN
GIVEN GUIDELINES. IT IS GOOD TO USE AS A GUIDE AND FOR REFERENCE, NEVER
PLAGARIZE. Thank you and success in your academics.
UNISA, 2025
Contents
QUESTION 1 .......................................................................................................................................... 2
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 2
2. Material Facts and Nature of the Damages Claimed .......................................................... 2
3. Litis Contestatio and the Effect of Substantial Amendments to Quantum .................. 3
4. Rule 34A and Section 17(6) of the RAF Act: Interim Payments ...................................... 3
5. Critical Evaluation of the Court’s Approach......................................................................... 4
6. Implications for Future RAF Damages Litigation ................................................................ 5
7. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 6
Bibliography ...................................................................................................................................... 6
, QUESTION 1
Critical discussion of Jordaan v Road Accident Fund (2022/03746) [2023]
ZAGPJHC 1260
1. Introduction
The judgment in Jordaan v Road Accident Fund (2022/03746) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1260
constitutes an important contribution to the law of damages, particularly in relation to the
procedural management of Road Accident Fund (RAF) claims, the concept of litis
contestatio, and the availability of interim payments under Rule 34A of the Uniform
Rules of Court and section 17(6) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996. The case
illustrates the tension between procedural certainty and substantive justice in RAF
litigation, especially where claimants amend the quantum of damages after pleadings
have closed. This discussion critically analyses the court’s reasoning and evaluates
whether its approach strikes an appropriate balance between procedural fairness,
access to justice, and the protection of injured claimants.
2. Material Facts and Nature of the Damages Claimed
The plaintiff, Jordaan, instituted an action against the Road Accident Fund for damages
arising from bodily injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Liability was not in
dispute, and the litigation centred primarily on the assessment and procedural handling
of the plaintiff’s damages claim. The plaintiff initially quantified his damages at a
particular amount, but subsequently effected substantial amendments to the quantum
claimed, significantly increasing the amount sought.
The damages claimed included general damages for pain and suffering, as well as
patrimonial losses such as loss of earnings or earning capacity. Following these
amendments, the plaintiff sought an interim payment in terms of Rule 34A of the
Uniform Rules of Court, read together with section 17(6) of the Road Accident Fund Act.
The RAF opposed the application, arguing that litis contestatio had already been
