Imagine being denied compensation for a car accident because the court ruled it wasn’t an accident at all—but a deliberate act of violence. That’s exactly what happened to a man in Limpopo, South Africa, after a bizarre tavern brawl turned into a legal battle. Oscar Mashengani’s claim against the Road Accident Fund (RAF) was dismissed by the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria, leaving him empty-handed and sparking a debate about the blurred lines between accidents and intentional harm.
Here’s how it unfolded: On the early morning of January 1, 2019, Mashengani found himself in a heated argument at Fish Point Tavern in Vleifontein, Louis Trichardt. The dispute? A bucket. Yes, you read that right. After the tavern owner asked Mashengani and his friends to leave, Mashengani requested a bucket to carry leftover liquor—a request that was granted. But here’s where it gets controversial: Tendani Edwin Ramunenyiwa, another patron, vehemently opposed the idea, leading to a physical altercation. Was this a harmless disagreement gone wrong, or a prelude to something far more sinister?
After being separated, Ramunenyiwa returned to his car and drove it directly at Mashengani, striking him. Bystanders intervened before a second attempt could be made. Mashengani was rushed to Vleifontein clinic, and Ramunenyiwa faced attempted murder charges. During police questioning, Mashengani admitted to slapping Ramunenyiwa during the fight—a detail that would later complicate his RAF claim.
And this is the part most people miss: When filing his RAF claim, Mashengani omitted the fight entirely, portraying himself as a victim of a hit-and-run. He stated, ‘A white private motor vehicle coming from behind hit my left leg, and I rolled on the ground.’ However, his friends’ statements and his own court testimony painted a different picture. In court, Mashengani admitted to the fight over the bucket and acknowledged inconsistencies in his account. He even denied being under the influence of alcohol, despite admitting to drinking from noon until 5:30 am—a claim Judge Graham Nasious Moshoana found hard to believe.
Judge Moshoana’s ruling was clear: Mashengani’s evidence lacked credibility. His oral testimony contradicted his sworn statements, and his friends’ accounts further undermined his case. The judge emphasized that the driver’s actions were intentional, constituting attempted murder rather than reckless driving. ‘The fact that an attempted murder case was registered and prosecuted reveals the driver’s intent to harm,’ Judge Moshoana stated. Since the RAF only compensates for negligence, Mashengani’s claim was denied.
But here’s the question that lingers: If a vehicle is used as a weapon in a fight, should it still be considered a road accident? Or does intent override the circumstances entirely? This case raises thought-provoking questions about liability, honesty, and the limits of legal protection. What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments—this is one debate that’s far from over.
