LPL4802
ASSIGNMENT 1
Academically sound.
Ethically crafted.
Distinction driven.”
The material provided is custom-written and
intended solely for study support and
academic guidance. It must not be
submitted as-is to any institution. All
documents are plagiarism-checked to
ensure originality. By purchasing, you agree
to use this material responsibly and in
accordance with your university’s code of
conduct.
, LPL4802
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 1
26 MARCH 2026
TWO DIFFERENT ANSWERS PROVIDED
Critical Discussion: Jordaan v Road Accident Fund (2022/03746) [2023]
ZAGPJHC 1260
Introduction and Material Facts
In Jordaan v Road Accident Fund, the Gauteng Division of the High Court
considered a claim arising from a motor vehicle collision on 5 May 2018. The plaintiff
suffered personal injury, and the accident resulted in the death of the primary
breadwinner of the family. The plaintiff claimed damages for medical expenses, loss
of earnings, and general damages arising from the injuries and consequential loss of
support for herself and two minor children (Jordaan v Road Accident Fund, 2023).
Initially, the plaintiff’s particulars of claim sought R2 300 000, which was later
increased to R5 007 673 on the eve of the hearing through substantial amendments
that included revised expert valuations of future medical and economic losses. The
RAF had conceded negligence but did not admit liability for damages beyond that.
The procedural question before the court was whether a default judgment could be
granted despite the substantial amendment to quantum and whether an interim
payment was appropriate under Rule 34A of the Uniform Rules of Court and section
17(6) of the Road Accident Fund Act (Jordaan v Road Accident Fund, 2023).
Litis Contestatio and Substantial Amendments
A key procedural issue was the determination of litis contestatio, the point at which
the issues in a case become fixed. The court reaffirmed that litis contestatio is
ASSIGNMENT 1
Academically sound.
Ethically crafted.
Distinction driven.”
The material provided is custom-written and
intended solely for study support and
academic guidance. It must not be
submitted as-is to any institution. All
documents are plagiarism-checked to
ensure originality. By purchasing, you agree
to use this material responsibly and in
accordance with your university’s code of
conduct.
, LPL4802
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 1
26 MARCH 2026
TWO DIFFERENT ANSWERS PROVIDED
Critical Discussion: Jordaan v Road Accident Fund (2022/03746) [2023]
ZAGPJHC 1260
Introduction and Material Facts
In Jordaan v Road Accident Fund, the Gauteng Division of the High Court
considered a claim arising from a motor vehicle collision on 5 May 2018. The plaintiff
suffered personal injury, and the accident resulted in the death of the primary
breadwinner of the family. The plaintiff claimed damages for medical expenses, loss
of earnings, and general damages arising from the injuries and consequential loss of
support for herself and two minor children (Jordaan v Road Accident Fund, 2023).
Initially, the plaintiff’s particulars of claim sought R2 300 000, which was later
increased to R5 007 673 on the eve of the hearing through substantial amendments
that included revised expert valuations of future medical and economic losses. The
RAF had conceded negligence but did not admit liability for damages beyond that.
The procedural question before the court was whether a default judgment could be
granted despite the substantial amendment to quantum and whether an interim
payment was appropriate under Rule 34A of the Uniform Rules of Court and section
17(6) of the Road Accident Fund Act (Jordaan v Road Accident Fund, 2023).
Litis Contestatio and Substantial Amendments
A key procedural issue was the determination of litis contestatio, the point at which
the issues in a case become fixed. The court reaffirmed that litis contestatio is
