A man who was seriously injured in a head-on collision on the N4 between Lobatse and Zeerust lost his bid for nearly R2.9 million in compensation after a court found he had given contradictory explanations for why he lost his job, according to a judgment handed down in the North West High Court, Mahikeng. Acting Judge M Wessels dismissed Oaitse Comfort Letsholonyane’s claim for past and future loss of earnings against the Road Accident Fund (RAF). The fund was ordered to cover his future medical costs for a right elbow injury sustained in the crash.
Conflicting accounts sink earnings claim According to the judgment, Letsholonyane was driving a Toyota Tazz on 26 June 2022 when a Toyota Hilux driven by Kagiso Oabile Phetew collided head-on with his vehicle. The court heard that liability, general damages of R400 000, and future medical expenses had already been settled, leaving only the loss of earnings claim, quantified at R2 877 965, for determination. At the centre of the dispute was how Letsholonyane lost his job at DEKRA Automotive.
Wessels noted that a dismissal letter from the company, dated 12 October 2023, stated: “Based on the evidence put before me, I find you guilty as charged, due to incapacity.” However, the judge pointed out that Letsholonyane’s own industrial psychologist, Thomas Tsikai, had recorded a different version, noting that his client “was subsequently dismissed from employment due to insubordination on the 12th of October 2023.” Wessels drew on the Labour Appeal Court’s description of insubordination in Sylvania Metals (Pty) Ltd v Mello N.O. and Others, which characterised it as “a wilful and serious refusal by an employee to adhere to a lawful and reasonable instruction of the employer, as well as conduct which poses a deliberate and serious challenge to the employer’s authority.” The judge found this concept could not be reconciled with medical incapacity, since the two were “mutually exclusive in this context.” Counsel’s concession and the burden of proof During arguments, plaintiff’s counsel reportedly conceded that insubordination did not directly relate to medical incapacity, though he maintained that Letsholonyane’s competitiveness in the open labour market remained compromised. Wessels was not persuaded, finding that Letsholonyane had failed to explain the discrepancy through his own affidavit or any supporting documents.
Summary from source