, PLEASE USE THIS GUIDELINES TO ANSWERS YOUR OWN ASSIGNMENT
LPL4802 ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 1 2026
ANSWERS
DUE DATE: 26 MARCH 2026
Material Facts and Nature of the Claim
In Jordaan v Road Accident Fund, the plaintiff, Ms Jeanine Maria Jordaan, instituted action
against the Road Accident Fund (RAF) following a motor vehicle collision on 5 May 2018. The
accident resulted in personal injuries to the plaintiff and the death of the family’s breadwinner,
which gave rise to claims for personal injuries, past and future loss of earnings, and loss of
support for herself and her two minor children.1 Initially, the particulars of claim quantified
damages at R2 300 000, with the default judgment application seeking R2 500 000.2 Shortly
before the hearing, the plaintiff filed an amended notice under Rule 28(1), substantially
increasing the quantum claimed to R5 007 673 for past and future medical expenses, loss of
earnings and generals, and R3 848 956.99 for loss of support.3 Concurrently, the plaintiff sought
an interim payment of R498 166 under Rule 34A of the Uniform Rules of Court and
section 17(6) of the RAF Act.4
Liability for negligence was conceded by the RAF as to the cause of the collision.5 However, the
concession excluded liabilities for the specific extent of injuries, causation of harm, and
quantum of damages. The RAF filed an appearance to defend only on the eve of the default
hearing, triggering consideration of litis contestatio and the effect of the amended quantum.6
Litis Contestatio and Substantial Amendments to Quantum
A central procedural issue was whether pleadings had closed and litis contestatio had been
reached, which determines when the issues are fixed for trial and default judgment may be
1
Jordaan v Road Accident Fund (2022/03746) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1260 (3 Oct 2023) para 1.
2
Ibid para 2–3.
3
Ibid para 4.
4
Ibid paras 8, 22.
5
Ibid para 1.
6
Ibid paras 8–12.
LPL4802 ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 1 2026
ANSWERS
DUE DATE: 26 MARCH 2026
Material Facts and Nature of the Claim
In Jordaan v Road Accident Fund, the plaintiff, Ms Jeanine Maria Jordaan, instituted action
against the Road Accident Fund (RAF) following a motor vehicle collision on 5 May 2018. The
accident resulted in personal injuries to the plaintiff and the death of the family’s breadwinner,
which gave rise to claims for personal injuries, past and future loss of earnings, and loss of
support for herself and her two minor children.1 Initially, the particulars of claim quantified
damages at R2 300 000, with the default judgment application seeking R2 500 000.2 Shortly
before the hearing, the plaintiff filed an amended notice under Rule 28(1), substantially
increasing the quantum claimed to R5 007 673 for past and future medical expenses, loss of
earnings and generals, and R3 848 956.99 for loss of support.3 Concurrently, the plaintiff sought
an interim payment of R498 166 under Rule 34A of the Uniform Rules of Court and
section 17(6) of the RAF Act.4
Liability for negligence was conceded by the RAF as to the cause of the collision.5 However, the
concession excluded liabilities for the specific extent of injuries, causation of harm, and
quantum of damages. The RAF filed an appearance to defend only on the eve of the default
hearing, triggering consideration of litis contestatio and the effect of the amended quantum.6
Litis Contestatio and Substantial Amendments to Quantum
A central procedural issue was whether pleadings had closed and litis contestatio had been
reached, which determines when the issues are fixed for trial and default judgment may be
1
Jordaan v Road Accident Fund (2022/03746) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1260 (3 Oct 2023) para 1.
2
Ibid para 2–3.
3
Ibid para 4.
4
Ibid paras 8, 22.
5
Ibid para 1.
6
Ibid paras 8–12.
