LPL4802
ASSIGNMENT 1 (SEMESTER 1)
DUE 26 MARCH 2026
JORDAAN v ROAD ACCIDENT FUND (2022/03746) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1260
In Jordaan v Road Accident Fund, the Gauteng Division of the High Court considered a
complex Road Accident Fund claim arising from a motor vehicle collision on
5 May 2018.1¹ The claimant, Ms Jeanine Maria Jordaan, was injured in the accident and
claimed damages comprising future and past medical costs, loss of income, and loss of
support for herself and her two minor children following the death of the family’s primary
breadwinner.2² The RAF conceded negligence on behalf of its insured driver, but its
admission did not extend automatically to liability for damages, leaving the quantum and
essential elements of causation and injury in dispute.3³
The plaintiff initially pleaded a quantum of R2 300 000 but sought to substantially amend
this on the eve of judgment to approximately R8 856 630, reflecting updated
medico-legal and financial projections.4⁴ She also applied for an interim payment under
Rule 34A of the Uniform Rules of Court and section 17(6) of the Road Accident Fund Act
56 of 1996 (“RAF Act”) to alleviate financial hardship pending final adjudication. 5⁵ The
RAF disputed both the procedural propriety of the amendments and the basis for interim
payment.6⁶
Litis Contestatio and Substantial Amendments to Quantum
A central procedural issue was the determination of litis contestatio, traditionally
understood as the point when the issues between the parties are fixed and pleadings
1
Jordaan v RAF (2023) ZAGPJHC 1260.
2
Jordaan v RAF (2023) ZAGPJHC 1260.
3
Jordaan v RAF (2023) ZAGPJHC 1260.
4
Jordaan v RAF (2023) ZAGPJHC 1260.
5
Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 34A; Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, s 17(6).
6
Rule 34A; RAF Act 56 of 1996, s 17(6).
ASSIGNMENT 1 (SEMESTER 1)
DUE 26 MARCH 2026
JORDAAN v ROAD ACCIDENT FUND (2022/03746) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1260
In Jordaan v Road Accident Fund, the Gauteng Division of the High Court considered a
complex Road Accident Fund claim arising from a motor vehicle collision on
5 May 2018.1¹ The claimant, Ms Jeanine Maria Jordaan, was injured in the accident and
claimed damages comprising future and past medical costs, loss of income, and loss of
support for herself and her two minor children following the death of the family’s primary
breadwinner.2² The RAF conceded negligence on behalf of its insured driver, but its
admission did not extend automatically to liability for damages, leaving the quantum and
essential elements of causation and injury in dispute.3³
The plaintiff initially pleaded a quantum of R2 300 000 but sought to substantially amend
this on the eve of judgment to approximately R8 856 630, reflecting updated
medico-legal and financial projections.4⁴ She also applied for an interim payment under
Rule 34A of the Uniform Rules of Court and section 17(6) of the Road Accident Fund Act
56 of 1996 (“RAF Act”) to alleviate financial hardship pending final adjudication. 5⁵ The
RAF disputed both the procedural propriety of the amendments and the basis for interim
payment.6⁶
Litis Contestatio and Substantial Amendments to Quantum
A central procedural issue was the determination of litis contestatio, traditionally
understood as the point when the issues between the parties are fixed and pleadings
1
Jordaan v RAF (2023) ZAGPJHC 1260.
2
Jordaan v RAF (2023) ZAGPJHC 1260.
3
Jordaan v RAF (2023) ZAGPJHC 1260.
4
Jordaan v RAF (2023) ZAGPJHC 1260.
5
Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 34A; Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, s 17(6).
6
Rule 34A; RAF Act 56 of 1996, s 17(6).
