Story audio is generated using AI
A former IT installer who had his right foot amputated after a car accident has attached several Road Accident Fund’s (RAF) assets to obtain R5m owed to him.
Some of the things 46-year old Kgaugelo Kaditsi attached are two SA flags, water dispensers, security scanner, microwaves and a firearm box.
In November 2019, Kaditsi was walking in Sasolburg when a car with unknown registration plates moved from its lane and plunged into him.
In September 2025, the Pretoria high court ordered RAF to pay Kaditsi just over R5,4m within 14 days. That, however, never happened, and on Monday a notice of attachment was issued.
“In pursuance of a judgment of the abovementioned court and a Writ for execution, the following property will be sold on July 24 at RAF’s office in Pretoria by the Sheriff of the high court to the highest bidder,” read the notice.
Among some of the RAF belongings that Kaditsi wants auctioned are a golf cart, sick bay beds, bar fridge, coffee machine and laptops, 57 Acer laptops, 28 office desks, two loud hailers, 358 telephones and a bluetooth speaker.
Kaditsi said he never went back to work due to his leg having been amputated. As a result, he filedfor loss of earnings. He argued that the accident was caused by the negligence of the driver whom he said failed to be observant, drove with excessive speed and failed to apply the brakes in time, among other things.
At the time of the accident, Kaditse said he was earning R15,500 per month. “A claim for loss of earnings is premised on the basis that there is an obligation of the respondent (RAF) to place the injured in the same position that he or she would have been had the accident not occurred.”
Kaditsi said he now has symptoms suggestive of post-traumatic stress, adjustment disorder and/or anxiety as a result of the accident and the injuries thereafter.
According to the court papers, RAF failed to file any counterpart experts, and thus the leading of viva voce (word of mouth) evidence with respect to those experts, to merely confirm the facts, assumptions and opinions as contained and expressed in their reports.
“Without the respondent being in a position to reasonably contest same, should be avoided as this amounts to the incurrence of unnecessary and substantial costs which include the securing of the presence of such expert witness at court as well as the presenting of their evidence.
“This would then be done at the expense of the public purse, with no benefit gained by the respondent for doing so. In addition thereto, this would amount to a waste of valuable court time and resources, where our courts are already overburdened, and this would hamper the disposal of additional matters.”
Sowetan
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.