Legal Principles:

Expert evidence | Loss of earnings | Industrial psychologists | Actuarial evidence | Causation | Onus | Default judgment | Road Accident Fund

Court Date: 29 April 2026

Judgment Date: 27 July 2026

Court: North West Division, Mahikeng

Case No: 2308/24

Judge:
Wessels AJ

Advocates:
R Mongwe

Attorneys:
MT Makhubela Inc

Experts:
Dr Peter Kumbirai (Orthopaedic Surgeon)
Sarah Marule (Occupational Therapist)
Thomas Tsikai (Industrial Psychologist)
Dr Robert Koch (Actuary)

Case Link:
Letsholonyane v Road Accident Fund (2308/24) [2026] ZANWHC (27 July 2026)

---

Summary for Experts

This judgment provides important guidance on the proper role of expert witnesses and the evidential foundation required before expert opinion can assist a court. Relying on Bee v Road Accident Fund, Masstores (Pty) Ltd v Pick ‘n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd and Road Accident Appeal Tribunal v Gouws, the court reaffirmed that expert witnesses must assist the court rather than usurp its function, that their opinions must be supported by a proper factual foundation and transparent reasoning, and that courts are not bound to accept unsupported expert conclusions.

The judgment further emphasises that industrial psychologists may assess occupational functioning and loss of earning capacity, but they are not qualified to diagnose medical conditions or to assume the existence of symptoms that have not been objectively established by appropriately qualified medical practitioners. Opinions founded upon unverified self-reported complaints rather than confirmed medical diagnoses fall outside the proper limits of expert evidence and carry little or no evidential weight.

The court also reaffirmed the principles in Southern Insurance Association Ltd v Bailey NO, holding that the assessment of future loss of earnings proceeds in two distinct stages. First, the assumptions underlying any actuarial calculation must rest upon a sound evidentiary foundation. Only once that foundation has been established does the court exercise its discretion regarding contingency deductions. Contingencies cannot cure defective expert evidence, speculative assumptions or a failure to prove causation. Consistent with these principles, the court rejected both the industrial psychologist’s opinion and the actuarial certificate because they lacked the objective factual and methodological foundation necessary to support an award for loss of earnings.

---

Summary for Mediators

This judgment demonstrates the importance of ensuring that both the factual and expert foundations of a claim have been properly established before attempting to negotiate settlement. The plaintiff’s claim for loss of earnings failed because contradictory evidence regarding the reason for his dismissal destroyed the necessary causal connection between the accident and his alleged financial loss, while the expert evidence relied upon assumptions that were not supported by objective medical evidence.

For mediators, the judgment highlights the value of rigorously evaluating the quality of expert evidence rather than merely its conclusions. Early identification of contradictory factual versions, unsupported assumptions, inadequate expert reasoning and deficient actuarial methodology may significantly narrow the issues in dispute and promote realistic settlement discussions. The decision further illustrates that expert reports which fail to disclose their factual foundation or reasoning are unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny, making these matters appropriate subjects for careful exploration during mediation.

---

The Issues

The court was required to determine:

• Whether the plaintiff had proved that the motor vehicle collision caused his past and future loss of earnings.
• Whether contradictory evidence regarding the reason for the plaintiff’s dismissal defeated the required causal connection.
• Whether the industrial psychologist’s opinion was admissible where it relied upon unverified self-reported symptoms.
• Whether the actuarial evidence provided a sufficient evidentiary foundation for quantifying the alleged loss of earnings.
• Whether the plaintiff was nevertheless entitled to a statutory undertaking for future medical expenses.

---

The Facts

The plaintiff sustained an open fracture of his right elbow in a motor vehicle collision during June 2022. Following surgery and rehabilitation, he returned to work as a vehicle examiner before his employment was terminated approximately one year later.

Liability, general damages and future medical expenses had largely been resolved before the hearing. The remaining issue was the plaintiff’s claim for approximately R2.9 million in respect of past and future loss of earnings. The plaintiff alleged that his injuries rendered him occupationally disabled and caused the termination of his employment. However, the documentary evidence contained conflicting explanations for his dismissal, while the expert evidence supporting the claim relied heavily upon symptoms that had not been medically verified.

---

The Court’s Analysis

1. Failure to Prove Causation

The court found that the plaintiff had advanced two irreconcilable explanations for the termination of his employment. While the dismissal documentation referred to incapacity, the industrial psychologist recorded that the dismissal resulted from insubordination. As these explanations were mutually exclusive and remained unexplained, the plaintiff failed to establish the necessary causal connection between the accident and his alleged loss of earnings.

2. Industrial Psychologist’s Opinion

The court held that the industrial psychologist impermissibly accepted numerous self-reported physical and psychological complaints as established medical facts despite the absence of supporting medical diagnoses. An industrial psychologist may evaluate occupational consequences arising from confirmed medical conditions but cannot diagnose medical conditions or base opinions upon unverified complaints. The resulting opinion therefore lacked the evidentiary foundation required to assist the court.

3. Deficient Actuarial Evidence

The actuarial certificate merely stated the calculated amount without explaining the assumptions, methodology, discount rates or contingency calculations employed. The court held that expert actuarial evidence must disclose the reasoning process supporting the calculation. Without that foundation, the actuarial opinion carried no evidential weight.

4. Contingencies Cannot Cure Defective Evidence

Relying upon Southern Insurance Association Ltd v Bailey NO, the court emphasised that contingency deductions operate only after a proper evidentiary foundation has been established. Contingencies cannot compensate for speculative assumptions, contradictory evidence or a failure to prove the factual basis of a claim.

5. Future Medical Expenses

Although the claim for loss of earnings failed, the court accepted the objective medical evidence establishing the plaintiff’s right elbow injury. The plaintiff was therefore awarded a statutory undertaking in terms of section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act for reasonable future treatment relating to that injury.

---

The Finding

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for past and future loss of earnings after finding that he had failed to prove the necessary causal connection between the accident and the alleged financial loss. The industrial psychologist’s opinion and actuarial evidence were held to be insufficiently supported by objective evidence and therefore incapable of sustaining the claim.

The court nevertheless granted a statutory undertaking in terms of section 17(4)(a) for future medical treatment relating to the plaintiff’s right elbow injury. In light of the mixed result, no order as to costs was made.

Published on: 28 July 2026

Found in:
Medico-Legal Updates › Practice Notes › Expert Evidence | Loss of Earnings | Industrial Psychology | Actuarial Evidence