The North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria has dismissed a man’s bid to claim compensation from the Road Accident Fund (RAF), ruling that his injuries were not the result of a hit-and-run crash as he alleged, but rather stemmed from a violent brawl at a Limpopo tavern where a vehicle was deliberately used as a weapon.
The case revolved around an incident that unfolded in the early hours of 1 January 2019 at Fish Point Tavern in Vleifontein, outside Makhado. The claimant, Oscar Mashengani, insisted that he had been walking alongside the road when an unknown vehicle struck him from behind. But evidence presented in court painted a very different picture — one involving an argument, a fight, and a targeted attack using a car.
The altercation began shortly after the tavern owner switched off the music and instructed patrons to leave. Mashengani requested a bucket to carry leftover alcohol he and his friends had purchased. The tavern owner agreed, but another patron, Tendani Edwin Ramunenyiwa, took issue with this, sparking a heated argument. The situation escalated into a physical fight, with witnesses confirming that Mashengani slapped Ramunenyiwa before the men were separated.
Moments later, Ramunenyiwa walked out, got into his vehicle, and drove it directly toward Mashengani and his friends. He struck Mashengani, injuring him. Witnesses further claimed that Ramunenyiwa attempted a second attack, only to be stopped by bystanders who intervened.
Mashengani was taken to Vleifontein Clinic for treatment, and a case of attempted murder was opened against Ramunenyiwa. In his initial police statement, Mashengani admitted he had been drinking from midday until the early hours and acknowledged slapping the driver before being hit. However, when filing his RAF claim, he omitted all references to the fight and instead described the incident as a hit-and-run.
When he took the stand, Mashengani shifted his version once again. He confirmed the dispute over the bucket but denied being under the influence. As the only witness supporting his claim, his testimony conflicted with both his earlier sworn statements and those made by his own friends, creating serious credibility issues.
Judge Graham Nasious Moshoana highlighted these inconsistencies, stating that the court could not rely on Mashengani’s evidence. The judge emphasized that the RAF compensates victims of road accidents caused by negligent driving — not intentional acts meant to cause harm. In this case, the court found that the driver had deliberately used his vehicle as a weapon during the altercation, placing the incident firmly outside the RAF’s mandate.
Judge Moshoana also pointed to the existence of the attempted murder case, which supported the conclusion that the driver’s intent was to injure Mashengani, not that he negligently caused a collision.
Ultimately, Mashengani failed to prove negligence on the part of the driver. As a result, the court dismissed his RAF claim in its entirety.
The ruling reinforces the legal principle that the RAF is not a compensation avenue for injuries sustained during criminal acts or intentional assaults — and that claimants who misrepresent facts risk losing their cases outright.
About the Author
