- Both drivers shared different versions of how the crash happened at a Bloemfontein intersection.
- The court decided that neither driver kept a proper lookout or took reasonable steps to avoid the crash.
- Their negligence was split equally, with each driver found responsible for half of the collision.
A failure by two motorists to keep a proper lookout contributed to a collision at a Bloemfontein intersection, where both drivers had an opportunity to observe the approaching vehicles and take steps to avoid the accident.
The High Court in Bloemfontein examined the circumstances surrounding the collision, including the conflicting accounts given by the two drivers, the traffic lights and the damage to their vehicles. The judgment was delivered by Judge I Van Rhyn, with Judge NS Daniso concurring, on 3 November 2026.
The accident happened at approximately 4.40am on 2 December 2017 at the intersection of Charlotte Maxeke and Hanger streets. The collision involved a VW Polo owned by Natalie Pauline Agwu and driven by Kenneth Agwu, and a Toyota Corolla owned by Mosidi Maria Lebona and driven by her son, Gomolemo Lebona. Both vehicle owners instituted separate claims for damages, which were later consolidated.
Two conflicting accounts
Kenneth Agwu testified that he was travelling along Hanger Street when he approached the intersection with a green traffic light. He said the Toyota suddenly approached from his left at high speed. He immediately stopped, but the Toyota collided with his vehicle.
According to Agwu, the Toyota driver was supposed to turn left at the intersection but continued straight ahead. He further testified that Lebona apologised after the collision and said his mother would pay for the repairs. Lebona’s father subsequently paid the towing costs for the VW Polo.
Lebona gave a different account of the accident. He testified that the traffic light was amber when he approached the intersection and that, shortly after entering, another vehicle struck him from the right. He said he lost control of the Toyota following the impact.
During cross-examination, Lebona could not recall whether he had looked to his right before entering the intersection, although he did not dispute that he was required to do so.
Traffic lights and failure to keep a lookout
The magistrate who initially heard the matter found both drivers negligent and apportioned their responsibility equally. However, the magistrate dismissed one of the vehicle owners’ claims while allowing the other to recover 50% of her proven damages.
On appeal, the High Court examined the drivers’ versions, the position of the vehicles and the damage sustained in the collision. Judge Van Rhyn found that Lebona was clearly negligent because, on his own version, the traffic light changed to amber almost immediately after he entered the intersection.
The judge also questioned why Lebona had travelled towards the middle of the intersection instead of turning left immediately, as required by the road layout. The damage to the Toyota was another consideration. Photographs showed damage along its right side, extending from the front fender and bumper towards the rear.
The court found that this damage did not support the suggestion that the vehicle had turned left immediately after entering the intersection. However, the court also found that Agwu had failed to keep a proper lookout and take reasonable steps to prevent the collision.
Judge Van Rhyn emphasised that both drivers had an opportunity to observe the approaching vehicles. The judge said, “Had either one kept a proper lookout, both would have noticed the other vehicle approaching the intersection.”
The court agreed with the magistrate that both drivers were equally negligent in causing the collision. It found that although the magistrate had correctly assessed the degree of fault, the final order did not reflect the finding that both drivers were equally responsible.
The High Court consequently set aside the magistrate’s order and directed that each vehicle owner recover 50% of their proven or agreed damages from the driver responsible for the respective claim. Each party was ordered to pay their own costs in the magistrates’ court, while the respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
