LPL4802 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE
ANSWERS) Semester 1 2026 (271981) -
DUE 26 March 2026
written by
EduPal
www.stuvia.com
Downloaded by: langalibalele69 | Want to earn
Distribution of this document is illegal R13,625 per year?
, Stuvia.com - The study-notes marketplace
LPL4802
Assignment 1 Semester 1 2026
Unique number: 271981
Due Date: 26 March 2026
2 DIFFERENT ANSWERS PROVIDED
Jordaan v Road Accident Fund (2022/03746) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1260 (3 October 2023)
In Jordaan v Road Accident Fund, the plaintiff, Jeanine Maria Jordaan, claimed damages
arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 5 May 2018. She sought
compensation for her own injuries and for the loss of support suffered by her two minor
children following the death of the family's breadwinner. The RAF accepted liability for the
accident by conceding that the negligence of its insured driver was the sole cause.1
Initially, the plaintiff’s particulars of claim indicated a total claim of R2.3 million for personal
injuries and loss of support. However, a day before the default judgment hearing, the plaintiff
served a Rule 28 notice to amend the quantum claimed to R8.85 million. The revised claim
included R5 million for past and future medical expenses, loss of earnings, and general
damages, and R3.8 million for loss of support.1
Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document as a guide for learning, comparison and reference purpose,
Terms of use
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this document as your own work,
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document
Fully accept the consequences
solely as a guide forshould you plagiarise
learning, reference,or and
misuse this document.
comparison purposes,
Ensure originality of your own work, and fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.
Comply with all relevant standards, guidelines, regulations, and legislation governing academic and written work.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is" without any express or
implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the
Downloaded by: langalibalele69 | Want to earn
information contained within this document. This document is intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes.
Reproduction, resale, or transmission of any part
Distribution ofdocument
of this this document,
is illegal in any form or by any means, is strictly
R13,625 prohibited.
per year?
, Stuvia.com - The study-notes marketplace
+27 81 278 3372
2 DIFFERENT ANSWERS PROVIDED
Jordaan v Road Accident Fund (2022/03746) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1260 (3 October 2023)
In Jordaan v Road Accident Fund, the plaintiff, Jeanine Maria Jordaan, claimed damages
arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 5 May 2018. She sought
compensation for her own injuries and for the loss of support suffered by her two minor
children following the death of the family's breadwinner. The RAF accepted liability for the
accident by conceding that the negligence of its insured driver was the sole cause.1
Initially, the plaintiff’s particulars of claim indicated a total claim of R2.3 million for personal
injuries and loss of support. However, a day before the default judgment hearing, the
plaintiff served a Rule 28 notice to amend the quantum claimed to R8.85 million. The
revised claim included R5 million for past and future medical expenses, loss of earnings,
and general damages, and R3.8 million for loss of support.2
The Road Accident Fund only filed its intention to defend on the day before the hearing.
The plaintiff also submitted an application for an interim payment of R498 166.00 for past
loss of earnings. The key legal questions before the court were whether the application for
default judgment was procedurally proper in light of the amended quantum and whether
the plaintiff was entitled to interim payment under Rule 34A of the Uniform Rules of Court
and section 17(6) of the RAF Act.3
Litis Contestatio and the Effect of the Amendment
The key procedural issue was whether the late amendment to the claim disturbed the
stage of litis contestatio, which marks the point at which pleadings are closed and the
dispute is fixed for trial. According to Rule 29, pleadings are considered closed when both
parties have joined issue, the time for filing a replication has lapsed, or the court formally
closes the pleadings.4
The court examined the meaning of litis contestatio in modern law and found that it
remains procedurally fluid. In Nkala v Harmony Gold, it was confirmed that pleadings can
1
Jordaan v Road Accident Fund (2022/03746) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1260, para 2-3
2
ibid para 4.
3
ibid para 8.
4
Uniform Rules of Court, rule 29.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
Downloaded by: langalibalele69 |
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, orWant to earn
transmission
ofDistribution
any part of ofthis
thisdocument
document, in any form or by any means, isR13,625
is illegal strictly per
prohibited.
year?
ANSWERS) Semester 1 2026 (271981) -
DUE 26 March 2026
written by
EduPal
www.stuvia.com
Downloaded by: langalibalele69 | Want to earn
Distribution of this document is illegal R13,625 per year?
, Stuvia.com - The study-notes marketplace
LPL4802
Assignment 1 Semester 1 2026
Unique number: 271981
Due Date: 26 March 2026
2 DIFFERENT ANSWERS PROVIDED
Jordaan v Road Accident Fund (2022/03746) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1260 (3 October 2023)
In Jordaan v Road Accident Fund, the plaintiff, Jeanine Maria Jordaan, claimed damages
arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 5 May 2018. She sought
compensation for her own injuries and for the loss of support suffered by her two minor
children following the death of the family's breadwinner. The RAF accepted liability for the
accident by conceding that the negligence of its insured driver was the sole cause.1
Initially, the plaintiff’s particulars of claim indicated a total claim of R2.3 million for personal
injuries and loss of support. However, a day before the default judgment hearing, the plaintiff
served a Rule 28 notice to amend the quantum claimed to R8.85 million. The revised claim
included R5 million for past and future medical expenses, loss of earnings, and general
damages, and R3.8 million for loss of support.1
Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document as a guide for learning, comparison and reference purpose,
Terms of use
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this document as your own work,
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document
Fully accept the consequences
solely as a guide forshould you plagiarise
learning, reference,or and
misuse this document.
comparison purposes,
Ensure originality of your own work, and fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.
Comply with all relevant standards, guidelines, regulations, and legislation governing academic and written work.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is" without any express or
implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the
Downloaded by: langalibalele69 | Want to earn
information contained within this document. This document is intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes.
Reproduction, resale, or transmission of any part
Distribution ofdocument
of this this document,
is illegal in any form or by any means, is strictly
R13,625 prohibited.
per year?
, Stuvia.com - The study-notes marketplace
+27 81 278 3372
2 DIFFERENT ANSWERS PROVIDED
Jordaan v Road Accident Fund (2022/03746) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1260 (3 October 2023)
In Jordaan v Road Accident Fund, the plaintiff, Jeanine Maria Jordaan, claimed damages
arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 5 May 2018. She sought
compensation for her own injuries and for the loss of support suffered by her two minor
children following the death of the family's breadwinner. The RAF accepted liability for the
accident by conceding that the negligence of its insured driver was the sole cause.1
Initially, the plaintiff’s particulars of claim indicated a total claim of R2.3 million for personal
injuries and loss of support. However, a day before the default judgment hearing, the
plaintiff served a Rule 28 notice to amend the quantum claimed to R8.85 million. The
revised claim included R5 million for past and future medical expenses, loss of earnings,
and general damages, and R3.8 million for loss of support.2
The Road Accident Fund only filed its intention to defend on the day before the hearing.
The plaintiff also submitted an application for an interim payment of R498 166.00 for past
loss of earnings. The key legal questions before the court were whether the application for
default judgment was procedurally proper in light of the amended quantum and whether
the plaintiff was entitled to interim payment under Rule 34A of the Uniform Rules of Court
and section 17(6) of the RAF Act.3
Litis Contestatio and the Effect of the Amendment
The key procedural issue was whether the late amendment to the claim disturbed the
stage of litis contestatio, which marks the point at which pleadings are closed and the
dispute is fixed for trial. According to Rule 29, pleadings are considered closed when both
parties have joined issue, the time for filing a replication has lapsed, or the court formally
closes the pleadings.4
The court examined the meaning of litis contestatio in modern law and found that it
remains procedurally fluid. In Nkala v Harmony Gold, it was confirmed that pleadings can
1
Jordaan v Road Accident Fund (2022/03746) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1260, para 2-3
2
ibid para 4.
3
ibid para 8.
4
Uniform Rules of Court, rule 29.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
Downloaded by: langalibalele69 |
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, orWant to earn
transmission
ofDistribution
any part of ofthis
thisdocument
document, in any form or by any means, isR13,625
is illegal strictly per
prohibited.
year?
