In January 2026, the High Court dismissed a claimant’s future loss of income claim against the Road Accident Fund where the injuries were minor soft‑tissue injuries with no permanent impairment and the evidence showed a rapid discharge, return to the same work, and increased earnings.
The claim arose from a motor vehicle accident on 9 February 2022, confirmed by hospital records, after the claimant was initially inconsistent about the date. He was admitted to Medi‑Clinic Nelspruit and discharged the following morning with no abnormalities noted and only take‑home medication. In an affidavit, he recorded soft‑tissue injuries to the head and chest but under cross-examination stated that he did not know the meaning of soft-tissue injury. The trial proceeded solely on the issue of future loss of income, with general damages deferred.
Across three disciplines, experts described predominantly minor soft-tissue injuries with normal clinical findings and symptoms expected to resolve with conservative care. The neurosurgeon noted intermittent headaches but found normal neurological examination and concluded a mild traumatic brain injury (concussion) with soft-tissue injuries. Psychotherapy and analgesia were suggested, and no severe or permanent sequelae were identified.
The orthopaedic surgeon found normal range of motion, sensation, reflexes, and full muscle power; he expected improvement with conservative management and deferred employability opinions to the occupational and industrial experts. The occupational therapist recorded full functional strength and a full range of movement in all limbs, recorded a 90% work rate and considered the claimant to be suitable for the open labour market despite transient chest discomfort when carrying 7.5 kg. The court rejected any claim that the claimant was no longer fit for heavy work on the evidence.
The court found that the claimant’s injuries were minor, taking into account the expert evidence and the fact that he had a brief hospital stay. The claimant returned to the same work, continued to perform the same tasks and his remuneration did not decrease (it had in fact increased). Further, the court noted various inconsistencies – the claimant said he was hospitalised for a week (records show discharge the next day), that he needed a month to recover (the occupational therapy report said seven days), and was retrenched (the occupational therapy report recorded continued employment).
On the evidence, the claimant failed to establish a probable diminution of earning capacity or future loss of income that causally linked to the accident. The future loss of income claim was therefore dismissed with costs, highlighting the importance of corroborating evidence in order to substantiate such a claim.
Shongwe v Road Accident Fund (2243/2023) [2026] ZAMPMBHC 6 (29 January 2026)