THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT

Reportable

Case No: 882/2016
In the matter between

ROAD ACCIDENT FUND
APPELLANT

and

REBECCA MOHOHLO
RESPONDENT

Neutral citation:
Road Accident Fund v Mohohlo (882/16) [2017] ZASCA 155 (24
November 2017)

Coram:
Leach JA, Meyer, Mokgohloa, Makgoka and Rogers AJJA

Heard:

13 November 2017

Delivered:

24 November 2017

Summary:
Delict – dependant’s action – claim by deceased’s aunt – de facto
adoption – deceased owed her duty of support – claimant sufficiently indigent to
enforce duty.

_________________________________________________________
ORDER
___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from: The Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria (Hughes J sitting
as court of first instance).

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT
___________________________________________________________________

Rogers AJA (Leach JA, Meyer, Mokgohloa and Makgoka AJJA concurring):

[1] The question in this appeal is whether the respondent, who was the plaintiff in
the court a quo, is entitled to claim damages for loss of support arising from the
death of her nephew, Otshepeng Letshufi, who died on 27 October 2011 as a result
of injuries sustained in a motor collision on 2 July 2011. The appellant, the
defendant in the court a quo (RAF), conceded the issue of negligence but disputed
the respondent’s right to damages. For convenience I refer to the respondent as the
plaintiff.
[2] The parties asked the court a quo to determine whether Otsepeng owed the
plaintiff a legal duty of support and whether she had the degree of indigence entitling
her to enforce the duty. The quantification of her claim, if these questions were
answered in her favour, stood over for later determination. Unfortunately, and
despite repeated admonishments from this court, the matter proceeded without a
formal separation order, without a clear identification of the issues and without
proper consideration as to whether separation was convenient.1 The result was that
the court a quo, which found for the plaintiff, made an order that the RAF was ‘liable
to compensate the plaintiff… (for) the amount of damages the plaintiff is able to
prove’. This was not in terms a determination of the issues which the parties
apparently wanted the judge to decide.

1 See eg Denel (Edms) Bpk v Vorster [2004] ZASCA 4; 2004 (4) SA 481 (SCA) para 3; Absa Bank
Ltd v Bernert [2010] ZASCA 36; 2011 (3) SA 74 (SCA) para 21.

[3] It is doubtful whether a separation of issues was convenient. The
quantification would not have required extensive evidence. More importantly, there
is a connection between indigence and quantification, since the quantum of support,
if any, to which the plaintiff is entitled would be the amount required to eliminate the
indigence.
[4] However, it would not be fair to the plaintiff if we were to refuse to determine
the appeal at this stage. We thus proceed on the basis that the court a quo’s
decision should be understood as a determination that Otsepeng owed the plaintiff a
legal duty of support and that she was sufficiently indigent to enforce the duty. Since
quantification has been deferred for later decision, even a slight deficit in her
resources would suffice to sustain the court a quo’s decision.
[5] It is not the plaintiff’s case that Otsepeng owed her a duty of support merely
by virtue of their blood relationship. According to our common law, blood relationship
per se only gives rise to a duty of support to the second degree of consanguinity so
that, while there is a duty of support between grandchild and grandparent, and
between siblings inter se, there is no duty of support between uncle/aunt on the one
hand and nephew/niece on the other. See Voet Commentary on the Pandects
25.3.10 (Gane’s translation); Van Leeuwen Roman-Dutch Law 1.13.7 (Kotze’s
translation, 2 ed); Van Leeuwen Censura Forensis 1.10.4 (WP Schreiner’s
translation); Sande Frisian Decisions 2.8; Huber Jurisprudence of My Time 1.23.30
(Gane’s translation); Ford v Allen & others 1925 TPD 5, which contains a full
discussion of the old authorities; United Building Society v Matiwane 1933 EDL 280
at 284; Vaughan NO v SA National Trust and Assurance Co Ltd 1954 (3) SA 667
(C) at 670D-671B. See also Van Heerden et al Boberg’s Law of Persons and the
Family 2 ed at 253.
[6] In Vaughan NO Herbstein J, with whom Van Wyk AJ concurred, referred to
Grotius 3.33.2 where the writer speaks of ‘the widow and children and any others, if
such there be, who were maintained by the dead man’s labour’, observing that
insofar as Grotius related the duty of support to the factual provision of support by
the deceased at the time of his death, the writer did not appear to state our law (at
671A). He also pointed out that, in the light of Voet’s unequivocal statement at

25.3.10, the same writer’s reference at 9.2.11 to a duty of support owed to the wife
and children and ‘other near relations’ could not be a reference to the relationship
between an uncle/aunt and nephew/niece.
[7] In the present case, the plaintiff relies on circumstances additional to the
blood relationship. She was the only person to testify (which she did through an
interpreter) and her evidence must be accepted unless it was plainly unsatisfactory,
which I do not think it was. Her evidence disclosed the following. She is the oldest of
her siblings, of whom only two sisters survive. She was 64 when she testified in
August 2015. Otsepeng is the child of one of her surviving sisters, Lenah. The latter
was an unmarried woman of 19 when she gave birth to Otsepeng in March 1983.
She was still at school. Otsepeng’s alleged father is deceased and disputed
paternity while he was alive. Lenah subsequently married another man with whom
she has four children and a grandchild.
[8] The plaintiff testified that in her culture, when a woman who has a child
marries another man, the man’s family will not accept the child as their own. In such
circumstances there is family consultation to decide who will take care of the child.
In the present case the plaintiff, who had no children of her own, agreed to take
Otsepeng into her home. He was about three months old. She treated him as her
son and he viewed her as his mother. Lenah and her husband never provided
financial support for him. She was asked why she did not formally adopt Otsepeng.
Her answer was that ‘in our culture we do not have these things of adopting’.
[9] The plaintiff was a domestic worker until 2004 when she was forced by ill-
health to give up permanent employment. She testified that she suffers from
diabetes, high blood pressure, heart troubles and arthritis. She has subsequently
done occasional jobs as a babysitter and selling vegetables and vetkoek. She
evidently cared well for Otsepeng because he was able to enter the formal job
market in 2007 at the age of about 24. At the time of the collision he was earning
R6 690 per month as a financial consultant with Old Mutual. He continued to live
with her. She testified that he supported her by giving her cash and buying her
groceries and clothes.

[10] This court has on several occasions in recent years considered the extension
of claims for loss of support to persons who do not fall within categories recognised
by the common law, in particular partners who are not married according to civil law.
Most recently, in Paixão & another v Road Accident Fund 2012 (6) SA 377 (SCA),
which dealt with a claim for loss of support by an unmarried life partner and her
daughter, Cachalia JA said the following (para 13, citation of authority omitted):
‘The existence of a dependant’s right to claim support which is worthy of the law’s
protection, and the breadwinner’s correlative duty of support, is determined by the boni
mores criterion or, as Rumpff CJ in another context put it in Minister van Polisie v Ewels, the
legal convictions of the community. This is essentially a judicial determination that a court
must make after considering the interplay of several factors: “the hand of history, our ideas
of morals and justice, the convenience of administering the rule and our social ideas of
where the loss should fall”. In this regard considerations of “equity and decency” have
always been important. Underpinning all of this are constitutional norms and values. So the
court is required to make a policy decision based on the recognition that social changes
must be accompanied by legal norms to encourage social responsibility. By making the boni
mores the decisive factor in this determination, the dependants’ action has had the flexibility
to adapt to social changes and to modern conditions.’
[11] Cachalia JA went on to refer to a passage from Mahomed CJ’s judgment in
Amod v Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accidents Fund (Commission for Gender Equality
Intervening) 1999 (4) SA 1319 (SCA) para 7 where the Chief Justice said that the
precise scope of the dependant’s action was unclear from the writings of the
Roman-Dutch jurists and that there were passages in Grotius and Voet perhaps
suggesting that the action might be extended to any dependant within the
deceased’s ‘broad family whom he in fact supported whether he was obliged to do
so or not’ or to any dependant enjoying a ‘de facto close familial relationship with the
breadwinner’. As I have said, Voet and others were quite clear that there was no
legal duty of support beyond the second degree of consanguinity.
[12] However, the legal convictions of the community are not static. It may well be
that a legal duty of support which depends on nothing more than the happenstance
of a blood relationship should be kept within the limits indicated in our old
authorities. Our ideas of morals and justice may not, in general, insist on support
between more distant relatives. It by no means follows that the same approach

should be followed where the blood relationship has been fortified by additional
circumstances. And in answering the latter question, one must have regard to the
values underlying our Constitution. One of these is ubuntu:
‘The spirit of ubuntu, part of the deep cultural heritage of the majority of the population,
suffuses the whole constitutional order. It combines individual rights with a communitarian
philosophy. It is a unifying motif of the Bill of Rights, which is nothing if not a structured,
institutionalised and operational declaration in our evolving new society of the need for
human interdependence, respect and concern.’
See Port Elizabeth Municipality v Various Occupiers 2005 (1) SA 217 (CC) para 37;
see also City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Blue Moonlight Properties
39 (Pty) Ltd & another 2012 (2) SA 104 (CC) para 38.
[13] Another relevant consideration is that in terms of s 211(3) of the Constitution
the court must apply customary law when that law is applicable, subject to the
Constitution and any legislation that specifically deals with customary law. In United
Building Society v Matiwane, cited earlier, the plaintiff, who claimed inter alia on
behalf of the daughters of the deceased’s sister, alleged that the deceased had
been duty bound to support his nieces ‘by native law and custom’ and that the
plaintiff was entitled to bring the claim on their behalf as the head of the kraal
according to such law and custom. The court held that customary law could not
govern the defendant’s liability and that our common law did not recognise a duty of
support owed by an uncle to his nieces. By virtue of s 211(3) of the Constitution, the
answer would be different now. What needs to be ascertained is whether in law the
one family member owed the other a duty of support. If that duty existed by virtue of
a customary law applicable to the family, the duty should be recognised, even
though – in a dependant’s claim – the defendant is not itself a party bound by
customary law.
[14] In the present case there was no expert evidence as to customary law.
However, the plaintiff testified as to what was required by her culture and her
evidence was not put in issue. It may well be that, once she agreed to care for
Otsepeng following family consultation, she had by customary law a legal duty to
support him but it is unnecessary to go so far. On her evidence, she at least felt
under a duty to do so. She started caring for him when he was still an infant and

continued to maintain him until he became self-supporting. Her behaviour, and the
way Otsepeng reciprocated when he became an adult, gave expression to ubuntu.
For all practical purposes the plaintiff adopted him, even though according to her
there was no formal process of adoption in her culture. The de facto relationship
between them was that of mother and child. This de facto relationship was every bit
as real as the de facto life partnerships which our courts have accepted as giving
rise to reciprocal duties of support.

[15] In Fosi v Road Accident Fund & another 2008 (3) SA 560 (C) Dlodlo J
provided an African law perspective of the duty of support. Although in that case the
deceased was the biological child of the mother, the following passage almost
certainly would have been recognised by the plaintiff and Otsepeng as applicable to
their de facto relationship of mother and child (para 16):
‘When an African (black) provides support and education to his/hers son/daughter, he/she is
not only under a duty to do so on the strength of the South African legal system, but custom
also obliges such a parent. In fact, in African tradition to bring up a child is to make for
oneself an investment in that when the child becomes a grown-up and is able to participate
in the labour market, that child will never simply forget about where he came from. That
child, without being told to do so, will make a determination (taking into account the amount
he/she earns, her travelling to and from work, food to sustain himself and personal clothing,
etc) of how much he must send home to the parents on a monthly basis. This duty is inborn
and the African child does not have to be told by anybody to honour that obligation. . . It is
for this reason that the plaintiff was puzzled on being asked in cross-examination why the
deceased sent her money. Her answer was rather telling: “Because the deceased knew
where he was coming from”. The duty of a child to support a needy and deserving parent is
well known in indigenous/customary law. It is observed by such children. There is always an
expectation on the part of a parent that his child will honour this duty.’
[16] In Metiso v Padongelukfonds 2001 (3) SA 1142 (T) the court recognised a
duty of support where an uncle had accepted custody of two minor children upon the
death of their father, his brother, even though the process of adoption was not
complete according to tribal rules because of the absence of consultation with the
mother’s family. With reference to this and other cases, Sutherland J in JT v Road
Accident Fund 2015 (1) SA 609 (GJ) said the following (para 26):

‘It seems to me that these cases demonstrate that the common law has been developed to
recognise that a duty of support can arise, in a given case, from the fact-specific
circumstances of a proven relationship from which it is shown that a binding duty of support
was assumed by one person in favour of another. Moreover, a culturally embedded notion
of “family”, constituted as being a network of relationships of reciprocal nurture and support,
informs the common-law’s appetite to embrace, as worthy of protection, the assumption of
duties of support and the reciprocal right to claim support, by persons who are in
relationships akin to that of family. This norm is not parochial but rather is likely to be
universal, it certainly is consonant both with norms derived from the Roman-Dutch tradition
. . . and, no less, from norms derived from African tradition, not least of al as exemplified by
the spirit of Ubuntu, as mentioned by Dlodlo J in Fosi v RAF supra.’
[17] In my view it would be consistent with the legal convictions of the community
to recognise a reciprocal duty of support between the plaintiff and Otsepeng.
Indeed, to deny it would revolt one’s ideas of ‘morals and justice’ and considerations
of ‘equity and decency’ (see Paixão supra).
[18] The defendant’s counsel submitted that such a finding would open the
floodgates to similar claims and that the RAF would be at an evidential disadvantage
in determining whether the de facto relationship existed. I do not think the
recognition of the duty of support can depend on the particular position of the RAF.
The question is whether, as between the de facto mother and child, a duty of
support exists. The fact that the breadwinner may die in a motor accident as a result
of another driver’s negligence, leading to potential liability on the part of the RAF,
cannot affect the answer to the question. If, for example, Otsepeng had fallen out
with his de facto mother and stopped supporting her, her right to claim support from
him could obviously not have been affected by the notional possibility that he might
at some stage die in a motor accident because of another driver’s negligence.
[19] Furthermore, there is nothing before us to show that claims of the present
kind would be very numerous. We will not be deciding that there is, without more, a
duty of support between an aunt and her nephew; or that such exists once it could
be shown that the nephew has assisted his aunt financially. We are only deciding
that a duty of support exists where, in accordance with the family’s cultural
practices, an aunt has de facto adopted an infant and brought him up as her own

child. I doubt whether such cases are likely to be more common than the life
partnerships which have already been recognised by the courts as giving rise to a
duty of support.
[20] In any event, the ‘evidential disadvantage’ should not be overstated. There
are many aspects of claims against the RAF which depend on information of which
the RAF in the nature of things can have no knowledge. Where loss of support is
claimed, para 18 of the prescribed RAF 1 form requires all necessary particulars to
be furnished, including the reason for dependence. Where the duty of support rests
on a de facto relationship rather than a blood or marital relationship recognised by
law, the proper answering of this component of the form would require adequate
particularity to be given. The RAF could ask the claimant to provide corroborating
information under oath, with the warning that if the claimant fails to do so but
eventually succeeds at trial, the RAF will ask for an adverse costs order. By signing
the prescribed form, the claimant expressly gives the RAF consent to obtain
information and documents from any persons who are able to provide it. After the
institution of proceedings the RAF could file a request for further particulars for
purposes of trial. It could consult with other family members.
[21] The other question we must decide is whether the plaintiff’s financial
circumstances are such that she is entitled to enforce the duty of support. In
Oosthuizen v Stanley 1938 AD 322 it was said that a child has a duty to support his
parents if they are ‘indigent’. Tindall JA referred to support in the form of food,
clothing, lodging and medical care ‘in accordance with the quality and condition of
the persons to be supported’. Whether a parent is in such a state of ‘comparative
indigency or destitution’ was said to be a question of fact depending on the
circumstances of each case (p 328). The word ‘comparative’ was presumably used
by the learned judge to emphasise that the exercise should be undertaken with
reference to the ‘quality and condition of the persons to be supported’ so that what
might constitute indigence with reference to one person would not necessarily
constitute indigence with reference to a more humble person (see Van Vuuren v
Sam 1972 (2) SA 633 (A) at 642E-F and 643E-F). Even so, support is limited to the
dependant’s basic needs – food, clothes, board and medical care (at 642F).

[22] Just as the existence of a duty of support is affected by considerations of
public policy, so in my view is the content of the duty. With the advent of democracy
and abolition of apartheid, people disadvantaged under the previous regime have
the opportunity of improving their economic lot. One of the ways of doing so is by
providing children with opportunities denied to their parents. I do not think it would
be consistent with our constitutional values to hold that an indigent woman, who has
been able to raise and educate a child despite her straitened circumstances, can
expect no more support from the child than is necessary to keep her in the same
deprived circumstances as she was forced to endure for most of her life.

[23] The plaintiff testified that while Otsepeng was alive they lived in Hillbrow
where her accommodation cost R1 000 per month. Since Otsepeng’s death she has
had to move back to her rural roots (she called it her homeland) where she now
pays R600 for accommodation. She estimated her monthly grocery and transport
expenses at R1 000 and R350 respectively. She also pays (or used to pay) a
monthly amount to a burial society. In cross-examination she was asked to confirm
that these were her expenses. She replied:
‘I have highlighted those things before court although they themselves are accommodated
to the grant that I receive and again what will it help me if I highlight to this court much more
things, there is quite a lot of things to life. There is quite a lot of things to spend in the life of
today that are in need to a person to survive.’

[24] The grant mentioned in this passage is an old age pension which she has
been receiving since she turned 60 (which would have been in 2011). This
amounted to R1 350 as at August 2015. She testified that while Otsepeng was alive
he would pay her between R1 200 and R1 300 per month in cash, which she spent
on rent, medication and her burial society contributions. In addition he would buy
groceries. From time to time he would also buy her clothes. She was asked about
her lifestyle before his death. She replied:
‘I was leading a very nice lifestyle your ladyship even in clothing. [Otsepeng] sometimes
said to me Mama let’s go out, let me go and buy you something that will make you look
nice.

And now ma’am what is your lifestyle now like? --- Even now in clothing your ladyship it is a
disaster with me. I do not have nice clothes any more. I do not live a lifestyle which I used to
live.’
[25] The defendant’s counsel submitted that this demonstrated that the plaintiff
was wanting support for luxuries. I disagree. Otsepeng’s income was not large. He
no doubt wanted the plaintiff to be able to dress in a way which lent her dignity and
gave her a certain basic pleasure. I do not think that that goes beyond her basic
needs.
[26] In regard to her selling of vetkoek, the plaintiff said that the income was
sporadic. She required assistance to sell as she could not stand for a long time.
When she ran out of money she looked to other relatives for help. As noted, she has
moved back to the countryside to reduce the cost of her accommodation. Her
household consists of herself and an unemployed daughter of her deceased brother,
for whom it seems she is caring on much the same basis as she took Otsepeng into
her home. The daughter has a child whom the plaintiff described as her grandchild.
[27] It is clear, in my view, that R1 350 per month, plus modest sporadic income
from selling vetkoek, is not enough to cover the plaintiff’s basic necessaries of life,
such as are reasonably appropriate to her station in life following Otsepeng’s
successful entry into the job market in 2007. At that time she was living in Hillbrow
and she should not be denied the opportunity of returning there, particularly since
she is likely to have increasing need of medical care as she ages. Even if one
confines her accommodation expenditure to the current amount of R600, that leaves
only R750 for groceries, clothing, transport, burial society contributions and other
incidental expenses. That is not enough to save her from indigence, even if it be
assumed that all medical expenses are provided free of charge by State facilities.

[28] In the circumstances, it is unnecessary to decide whether the plaintiff’s ability
to obtain free medical services from the State should be taken into account when it
comes to quantifying her claim for loss of support. When that question comes to be
answered, the parties will need to have regard to the recent judgment of the
Constitutional Court in Member of the Executive Council for Health and Social

Development, Gauteng v DZ obo WZ [2017] ZACC 37 (31 October 2017). In para 23
of the majority judgment, Froneman J said the following with reference to this court’s
decision in Ngubane v South African Transport Services [1990] ZASCA
148; 1991 (1) SA 756 (A):
‘Ngubane is authority for allowing a defendant to produce evidence that medical services of
the same or higher standard, at no or lesser cost than private medical care, will be available
to a plaintiff in future. If that evidence is of a sufficiently cogent nature to disturb the
presumption that private future healthcare is reasonable, the plaintiff will not succeed in the
claim for the higher future medical expenses. This approach is in accordance with general
principles in relation to the proving of damages.’
Froneman J disapproved the contrary conclusion in the more recent decision of this
court in The Premier, Western Cape N.O. v Kiewitz [2017] ZASCA 41; 2017 (4) SA
202 (SCA). If this approach were extended to claims for loss of support
incorporating future medical treatment, the passage I have quoted suggests that the
evidential burden would rest on the RAF to show that the plaintiff does not
reasonably require private medical treatment as part of her support.
[29] I thus make the following order:
The appeal is dismissed with costs.

____________________
O L Rogers
Acting Judge of Appeal

APPEARANCES

For Appellant
R Strydom (with him CPJ Strydom)

Instructed by

FourieFismer, Pretoria c/o Maduba Attorneys,
Bloemfontein

For Respondent
P Lourens

Instructed by

Spruyt Inc, Pretoria c/o Webbers Attorneys,
Bloemfontein

SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

MEDIA SUMMARY – JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF APPEAL

FROM
The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal
DATE
24 November 2017
STATUS
Immediate

Road Accident Fund v Mohohlo (882/16) [2017] ZASCA 155 (24 November
2017)

Please note that the media summary is intended for the benefit of the media
and does not form part of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court of Appeal today dismissed an appeal by the Road
Accident Fund (‘RAF’) against a judgment of the Gauteng Division of the High
Court, Pretoria, in which that court held that the respondent was entitled to
claim damages from the RAF for loss of support.
The respondent was the biological aunt of the deceased breadwinner. She
had de facto adopted him when he was an infant and he had grown up
regarding her as his mother. This de facto adoption occurred in accordance
with the respondent’s culture and following a family meeting. Although our
common law does not ordinarily recognise a duty of support between an aunt
and nephew, the additional circumstances present in this case, and
particularly the de facto adoption, justified the conclusion that there was a
reciprocal duty of support between the respondent and the deceased.
~~ ends~~