In Moloi v Road Accident Fund (333/2024) [2026] ZASCA 13, the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed an application for special leave to appeal in a claim for future loss of earnings against the Road Accident Fund. The applicant sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident in 2016 and instituted action for damages, including both past and future loss of earnings. Liability was settled in her favour and general damages were agreed. At trial, the High Court awarded damages for past loss of earnings but dismissed the claim for future loss. That decision was upheld by the full Court, and the SCA confirmed that there were no reasonable prospects of success nor any special circumstances warranting a further appeal.
The applicant relied on evidence from a clinical psychologist, an industrial psychologist, an educational psychologist, and an actuary to support her contention that accident-related psychological sequelae would limit her future career progression. The central issue was whether this evidence had sufficient probative value. The SCA endorsed the full Court’s finding that it did not, for the following reasons:
- The clinical psychologist’s assessment was several years old and admittedly outdated, with no clarity regarding whether the applicant had since received treatment or improved.
- The educational psychologist did not testify, and her report was not properly admitted, rendering it hearsay.
- The industrial psychologist’s opinion - that the applicant would reach a lower career ceiling - was largely founded on these deficient sources.
- The actuarial evidence merely quantified a loss based on assumed facts and could not establish that a loss would probably occur.
The court held that to test the opinion of experts, the facts on which they draw their conclusions must be considered. If the facts an expert relies on are incorrect, then the expert’s opinion based on those facts may be flawed, possibly fatally.
The SCA was particularly critical of the absence of objective evidence. By the time of trial, the applicant was employed and progressing in her career, yet no evidence was led from her employer to demonstrate impaired performance or diminished prospects. In a claim premised on an impaired ability to progress professionally, the failure to obtain evidence from the one source capable of providing objective insight into actual performance and future prospects was described as a fatal flaw. The applicant herself also did not testify, despite the claim being founded on subjective sequelae such as anxiety, reduced confidence, and cognitive difficulties. In the absence of employer evidence or direct testimony from the applicant, the alleged future loss was found to be speculative and “entirely unmoored from objective reality”.
This judgment is a reminder that claims for future loss of earnings must be properly supported by evidence. While expert evidence remains important, it carries little weight where it is based on outdated assessments or incorrect factual assumptions.
