About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2014
>>
[2014] ZAGPJHC 49
|
|
Mota and Others v Minister of Police (46394/2011) [2014] ZAGPJHC 49 (28 February 2014)
Links to summary
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO: 46394/2011
In
the matter between:
MOTA,
TSIETSI
ISAAC
1
st
Plaintiff
MOLOTO,
SELBY
2
nd
Plaintiff
MAZIYA,
MUDUUZI
SELBY
3
rd
Plaintiff
MAGAGANE,
MAKAFELA
4
th
Plaintiff
and
MINISTER
OF
POLICE
Defendant
J
U D G M E N T
BHAYAT,
AJ
INTRODUCTION
[1]
The four plaintiffs instituted a claim for damages against the
defendant alleging that they were unlawfully arrested and detained
by
member(s) of the South African Police Services (“SAPS”)
on 12 December 2010 at about 02h00. In addition, the 4
th
plaintiff claimed damages as a result of being wrongfully and
unlawfully assaulted by member(s) of the SAPS.
[2]
The parties had agreed that the four plaintiffs had been wrongfully
arrested and detained by the SAPS for approximately ten
hours before
being released. It was agreed that each plaintiff would receive
compensation in the amount of R45 000 arising
from their
wrongful arrest and detention. This aspect was settled out of court.
[3]
The trial proceeded in respect of the assault on the 4
th
plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff”).
THE
PARTIES
[4]
The plaintiff is Makafela Abram Magagane, an adult [……]
student at SRC [……….], residing at
[……….].
He was born on [……….] and was […….]
years old at the time of the
incident (now ……..).
[5]
The defendant is The Minister of Police acting in its official
capacity.
PLEADINGS
- CAUSE OF ACTION
[6]
The plaintiff alleges that on or about 12 December 2010 at
approximately 03h00, at or near Grey Avenue in Germiston, he was
wrongfully and unlawfully assaulted by a member or members of the
SAPS acting jointly and/or severally, whose identities are unknown
to
the plaintiff, but may have included Warrant Officers Hadzi and
Khoza, in that:
(a)
he/they
shot the plaintiff from behind and in the back of his head; and
(b)
he/they
thereafter stamped the plaintiff on the neck with a booted foot.
[7] At
all material times the said policemen were acting within the course
and scope of their employment as policemen of the SAPS.
[8] As
a result of the assault, the plaintiff had to undergo medical
treatment and suffered contumelia. As a consequence of the
aforegoing, the plaintiff alleged he suffered the following damages
in the amount of R804 520-51 made up as follows:
Patrimonial
loss:
(a)
Past
medical expenses
R 4 520-51
(b)
Estimated
future medical expenses
R100 000-00
(c)
Estimated
future loss of earnings
R100 000-00
Non
patrimonial loss:
(d)
Pain
and
suffering: R500 000-00
Pain
and suffering and disfigurement
caused
were initially severe and thereafter
abated
but presently still subsists in regard
some
of the injuries
(e)
Contumelia R100 000-00
[9] He now claims payment
of R804 520-51 plus interest at the rate of 15.5% per annum from
date of judgment to date of payment
and costs.
FACTS
IN DISPUTE
[10]
The defendant disputes the assault and the direct cause of the
plaintiff’s injury and whether the injury was caused by
a
bullet or a glass.
[11]
Save for the past medical expenses, the defendant disputes the
quantum claimed.
PLAINTIFF’S
CASE
First
witness : Makafela Abram Magagane
[12]
Plaintiff testified that he and the other plaintiffs were travelling
in a silver Volkswagen Polo (“Polo”) from
the Mariston
Hotel and Residential building (“the Mariston”) in
Johannesburg to Germiston. They had visited a friend
of the 2
nd
plaintiff at the Mariston.
[13]
He knew the 3
rd
plaintiff as they come from the same area in Limpopo. The 1
st
and 2
nd
plaintiffs were friends of his cousin. Plaintiff was supposed to
sleep at the 3
rd
plaintiff’s house in Germiston.
[14]
On returning to Germiston, plaintiff was asleep in the back seat of
the Polo and was oblivious to what had transpired until
he felt a
trickle of blood oozing from behind his left ear.
[15]
He had woken up and ascertained that he had been hit by a bullet
fired by a policeman. The bullet had shattered the rear windscreen
of
the Polo. He was unaware of the events leading up to the shooting but
learnt that the police had given chase as a result of
alleged
negligent and reckless driving.
[16]
Plaintiff was accused of being the driver and falsely charged whereas
it was the 1
st
plaintiff who had been driving. Under cross examination, it was
established that the State did not proceed with these charges against
him but had proceeded to charge Pugo Khosi Keabetsoe for reckless and
negligent driving, which charges were later withdrawn.
[17]
He also learnt that the police had accused the plaintiffs of
attempting to hijack a truck along the highway. As they did not
stop,
the police had fired at their vehicle.
[18]
Plaintiff testified that the shooting occurred on Grey Avenue
Dinwiddie Germiston. Several police vehicles were at the scene.
He
was transported by ambulance to the Tembisa Hospital. At the hospital
a nurse had wiped the blood and the wound was plugged
with cotton
wool. He was not admitted. He was simply treated and discharged.
[19]
The same police officers who were involved with the car chase then
took him from the hospital to the Germiston Police Station
where he
was placed in a cell. He was released between 20 and 24 hours later.
[20]
As the wound did not heal, he had visited the Netcare Union Hospital
on 17 December 2010. X-rays were taken and it was
found that
bullet shrapnel was lodged in his head, above his left ear. He was
operated on the same day and the shrapnel was removed.
He was
admitted at 16h00 on
17 December 2010 and discharged at 11h00 on
18 December 2010.
Second
witness : Rolene Hovsha
[21]
Ms Hovsha holds a B.A Hons (Applied Pschychology) and M.A (Clinical
Psychology) (cum laude) with a special interest in neuropsychology.
The witness has twenty three and a half years experience as a
clinical psychologist and has practised in both South Africa and
Australia. In addition, in the past ten years, she has also practised
as a neuropsychologist.
[22]
The plaintiff’s attorney had requested the expert witness to
undertake a psycho-legal evaluation to establish the sequelae
of the
plaintiff’s traumatic brain injury, his mental state and
emotional impact of his injuries.
[23]
The evaluation was conducted on 29 January 2014. In clinically
evaluating and compiling her report, Hovsha had regard to the
Netcare
Union Hospital records, the reports of two neurosurgeons, namely
Drs
Repko and Segwapa. Dr Repko had passed away prior to the hearing and
therefore the plaintiff had subsequently consulted with
Dr Segwapa.
As a result plaintiff was re-evaluated by Dr Segwapa.
[24]
In amplification of her report dated 30 January 2014 (Exhibit A) and
addendum thereto (Exhibit A1), Hovsha testified that she
had seen the
plaintiff on one occasion lasting approximately five hours during
which time a neuro and clinical psychological assessment
was carried
out.
[25]
The plaintiff complained about the following to her:
(a)
He
suffers from headaches about two to three times a week and uses over
the counter medication to ease the pain;
(b)
He
suffers from itchiness on the site of the operation;
(c)
He
reports symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of the
incident. These include nightmares related to the incident;
he has
intrusive thoughts about the incident; he gets angry at times because
he doesn’t understand why they shot at him;
he gets anxious
when sees a lot of blue lights; he is anxious when he is a passenger;
he is hyper vigilant.;
(d)
He
worries that he may be found guilty of something he didn’t do;
(e)
His
concentration is not as good as it used to be;
(f)
His
hearing is poor in his left ear.
[26]
Hovsha testified to the results of the investigation as follows:
Neuropsychological
deficits:
(a)
Impaired
auditory attention, concentration and tracking;
(b)
Severely
impaired numerical reasoning which requires the capacity for
attention;
(c)
Severely
impaired mental control;
(d)
Severely
impaired motor persistence, sustained attention, response speed and
visual motor co-ordination;
(e)
Severely
impaired capacity for abstraction and no verbal concept
formation, visual analysis, planning and visu-motor co-ordination;
(f)
Severely
impaired ability to translate two dimensional pictures into three
dimensional objects;
(g)
Severely
impaired visuo-spatial and constructional skills, spatial
organisation and planning;
(h)
Impaired
motivation;
(i)
Impaired
initiation and the ability to generate new information;
(j)
Impaired
error awareness, self monitoring and self regulation;
(k)
Severely
impaired judgement;
(l)
Severely
impaired delayed auditory recall;
(m)
Severely
impaired working memory; and
(n)
Severely
impaired logical or narrative memory which is the ability to recall
auditory information presented in a logical manner
without rehearsal.
Emotional
functioning:
(o)
Moderate
depression; and
(p)
Symptoms
of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
[27]
The neuropsychological assessment revealed deficits in several areas
of functioning including attention, motor speed, visuo-praxis,
executive functioning and memory. This is in keeping with the focal
injury to the wound site in the left tempero-parietal area
found on
the CT scan.
[28]
Injuries associated with tempero-parietal lesions typically give rise
to the following problems:
(a)
A
disturbance of auditory sensation as wells as auditory perception;
(b)
A
disturbance of selective attention of auditory and visual material;
(c)
Poor
recall of verbal and visual information;
(d)
A
disturbance of visual perception;
(e)
A
disturbance of language comprehension;
(f)
Impairment
of long-term memory;
(g)
Altered
personality and affective behaviour;
(h)
Poor
memory for verbal material;
(i)
Impaired
knowledge of numbers and their relationships;
(j)
Poor
manipulation of objects;
(k)
Impaired
reading and writing; and
(l)
Impaired
memory.
[29]
The plaintiff showed impairments in many of the above areas and
tested poorly on tests measuring these abilities. Prior to
the
incident, plaintiff appeared to have been functional in all areas,
namely, physically, cognitively, academically, socially
and
emotionally. These are indicative of a moderate focal traumatic brain
injury. Attention and memory are particularly affected
by depression
and anxiety.
[30]
The headaches would aggravate the plaintiff’s depression and,
in turn, impair his cognitive functioning. A significant
period of
time has elapsed since the incident (three years at the time of the
report). Therefore the deficits are likely to be
of a stable and
permanent nature and are unlikely to improve over time.
[31]
Hovsha had recommended that the plaintiff be referred to a
psychiatrist to treat his depression and Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder over a period of five years; that the initial session would
cost R2 500 and the cost of ten sessions in the first
year would
be R1 100 per session; six sessions in the second year at a cost
R1 100 per session and three sessions per
year for the remaining
three years at a cost of R1 100 per session. Thus the total cost
for psychiatric treatment could be
R30 000.
[32]
She further recommended that the plaintiff be referred to a clinical
psychologist also for the treatment of his depression
and that he
would require 30 sessions at a cost of R950 per session. Thus the
total cost for this treatment is R28 500.
[33]
In addition, she also recommended that plaintiff would benefit from
five counselling sessions at the rate R950 per session
to understand
and cope with his behaviour. This amounts to R4 750.
Dr
Segwapa’s medico- legal report
[34]
After examining and interviewing the plaintiff, Dr. Segwapa concluded
the following in his medico-legal report dated 31 January
2014
(Exhibit B):
(a)
Plaintiff
enjoyed a healthy physical life before the incident;
(b)
He
has reduced hearing capacity in his left ear which needs to be
evaluated by an Ear, Nose and Throat surgeon;
(c)
He
displays clinical features of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder for
which he is required to be evaluated by a clinical psychologist;
(d)
Plaintiff
has a 5% risk of developing epilepsy. If it develops, he will require
anti epileptic medication for at least five years
or longer depending
on clinical response;
(e)
Plaintiff
will require analgesics for four to five years to manage his
headaches;
(f)
He
suffered acute pains for two weeks after the incident;
(g)
He
suffers from chronic post-concussion headaches. It was well
documented in neurosurgical literature that 80% of patients
suffering
from post concussion headaches recover within two to three years.
However 20% of patients remain with the chronic symptoms;
(h)
Amenities
of normal living were lost for six weeks after the incident;
(i)
An
industrial psychologist should evaluate the impact of his current
functional status on his ability to compete in an open labour
market;
(j)
It
will cost approximately R14 000 per annum to treat epilepsy
depending on the type of treatment given;
(k)
A
global amount of approximately R25 000 will suffice in the
future treatment of his headaches;
(l)
This
excludes the fees of other specialists;
(m)
Longevity
has not been affected.
DEFENDANT’S
CASE
[35]
The defendant had called a single witness, Warrant Officer Tshililo
Peter Hadzi. He has 25 years experience as a policeman
out of which
14 years are as a Warrant Officer. He is stationed at the Brixton
Police Station and occupied the same position and status at the
time
of the incident.
[36]
On 11 December 2010, he had reported for duty. He was assigned
together with his partner, Constable Makhune, to attend to crime
prevention along the highways in Gauteng.
[37]
Constable Makhune (the driver) and the witness were patrolling the M2
East in a marked police vehicle, namely, a Ford
Focus which was
adorned with blue lights. As they approached the Joe Slovo offramp,
they saw the plaintiffs’ Polo travelling
at a high speed. They
switched on the blue lights and siren, gave chase and even tried to
force the vehicle off the road.
[38]
The driver resisted their attempts and continued travelling at a very
high speed of between 180km to 200km per hour.
During the
chase, he radioed for other police officers to assist. The Polo
joined the N3 towards Durban and then took the Grey
Avenue offramp.
[39]
The driver went through two red robots. The vehicle began to slow
down in Grey Avenue and that was when the witness jumped
out of the
police vehicle and shouted “police”. He was ignored and
the driver started to increase speed.
[40]
It was raining heavily when the witness fired a warning shot into the
ground with his R5 rifle and a second shot at the rear
tyre of the
Polo. The vehicle then stopped. As the witness got nearer, he saw a
crack in the rear windscreen of the Polo.
He was approximately
10 meters away when he fired the first shot and 20 meters away when
he fired the second shot.
[41]
The vehicle stopped and four to five males emerged and walked towards
them. They demanded to know why the policemen were shooting
at them.
They were ordered to sit down and he noticed that one of them was
bleeding from his ear.
[42]
He called for an ambulance and other police officers. Constable
Makhune and himself escorted the ambulance to the Tembisa Hospital.
The doctor on duty had advised him that the plaintiff sustained a
scratch. The doctor had refused to treat the patient unless they
had
a police case number.
[43]
He had remained with the plaintiff at the hospital whilst Constable
Makhune had gone to the police station to obtain the case
number. He
had returned at 05h00. The plaintiff’s wound was simply wiped
of blood and plugged with cotton wool by a nurse.
He does not know if
they took any x-rays or scans.
[44]
At approximately 10h00 they had left the hospital with the plaintiff
and had driven to the Germiston Police Station where the
plaintiff
was detained in the cells. This was approximately 11h00. The
detectives had taken over the case from there and he was
unsure as to
when the plaintiff was released.
[45]
He further testified that if the bullet fired from the R5 rifle had
hit the plaintiff, he would have died within 30 minutes
nor would the
doctors have discharged him if this had occurred.
[46]
He testified under cross examination that only a small bit of the
bullet would hit the intended target and the rest of the
cartridge
would fall off at the spot where the gun was fired.
[47]
He had intended to shoot at the tyre of the Polo. He stated that he
believed that the bullet had ricochet, hit the rear windscreen
and a
sliver of glass from the rear windscreen had caused the injury to the
plaintiff.
[48]
He confirmed that no complaint had been received that the plaintiffs
were involved in a hijacking as stated in the report of
Constable
Makhune.
ANALYSIS
OF THE EVIDENCE
Merits
[49]
The defendant disputed that the assault took place and that the
injury to the head of the plaintiff was caused by a gunshot
fired by
the policeman and also disputed the quantum claimed.
[50]
Plaintiff had pleaded that his neck was stamped on with a booted foot
but had led no evidence in this regard. Therefore this
aspect
requires no further comment.
[51]
Its common cause that the Netcare Union Hospital records reveal that
there was bullet shrapnel in the soft tissue overlying
the left
parietal bone behind and above the left ear. There was also a
contusion haemorrhage adjacent to the shrapnel in the left
parietal
lobe. There was slight peripheral oedema in this region.
[52]
It is also common cause that the plaintiff was operated on and the
shrapnel was removed from the scalp behind the left ear.
The injury
sustained is consistent with all the probabilities of the facts.
[53]
The facts are that a bullet was fired by Warrant Officer Hadzi at the
vehicle in which the plaintiff was asleep in the left
rear back seat.
It has not been disputed that the bullet had shattered the rear
windscreen of the Polo. The dispute centred around
whether the bullet
had hit the plaintiff. It is abundantly clear from the Netcare Union
Hospital records that the injury sustained
by the plaintiff is
consistent with that of a bullet wound.
[54]
The facts do not reveal that the police officer had successfully.hit
the tyre. On the contrary, the evidence reveals that the
bullet had
struck the rear windscreen and had proceeded to hit the plaintiff.
Warrant Office Hadzi conceded that he did not have
sufficient
experience in handling this firearm and that he had only used it once
previously in a controlled environment at a shooting
range. He
further conceded that he had missed the target, namely, the tyre.
[55]
There is no doubt that the bullet had struck the plaintiff. The
evidence of Warrant Officer Hadzi that the bullet had ricochet
is
based on speculation and conjecture. The officer did not provide
evidence to substantiate any of these factors.
[56]
On the other hand, the plaintiff’s version regarding his injury
is consistent with the hospital records and removal of
the bullet
shrapnel from his head.
[57]
I am satisfied that in considering the probabilities, that the
probabilities favour the plaintiff who bears the onus. The plaintiff
has discharged the onus.
Quantum
[58]
In support of his claim, the plaintiff had delivered three expert
reports, namely, a report by a clinical psychologist (Rolene
Hovsha)
dated 30 January 2014 and an addendum thereto dated 12 February 2014
as well as reports by two neurosurgeons (Drs Segwapa
and Repko )
dated 31 January 2014 and 18 January 2013 respectively. The
plaintiff made no reference to the report of Dr Repko
as he had
passed on but placed reliance on the report of Dr Segwapa by whom
plaintiff was re-evaluated after Dr Repko’s death.
[59]
The defendant did not file any expert reports to gainsay that of the
plaintiff’s. The court can therefore only
rely and be
guided by the plaintiff’s expert reports. Only Hovsha was
called to testify.
[60]
The amount of R4 052-51 in respect of past medical expenses was
not placed in dispute by the defendant. Defendant had
conceded during
the trial.
[61]
The plaintiff placed reliance on Hovsha’s report in respect of
future medical expenses for the treatment of depression
and Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder as appears in the addendum to her report.
[62]
She also recommended that the plaintiff will benefit from counselling
sessions. The required number of sessions and the related
costs are
noted in the report after she had made enquiries with the other
professionals. The number of sessions and the amounts
are not in
dispute as the defendant did not file any expert report to contest
same.
[63]
Dr Segwapa stated that the plaintiff has a 5% risk of developing
epilepsy. To date, three years after the incident, he has
not
developed epilepsy and therefore no award will be made in this regard
for future medical treatment.
[64] The plaintiff had
abandoned the claim for future loss of earnings and therefore no
further comment is required on this aspect.
[65]
Plaintiff’s counsel submitted that an amount of R400 000
would be a just award in respect of general damages and
defendant’s
counsel submitted that an amount of R200 000 would be just and
sufficient but did not provide any comparable
decision.
[66]
In support of plaintiff’s claim for general damages, counsel
referred the court to comparable cases, namely, Makupula
v Road
Accident Fund 2011 (6B4) QOD 48 (ECM) and Bikawuli v Road
Accident Fund 2010 (6B4) QOD 17 (ECB).
[67]
In the Makupula matter, a five year old boy had suffered from mild to
moderate brain injury. The after effects was neurocognitive
deficits
associated with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, memory
dysfunction,
unco-operative and aggressive behaviour, poor
concentration, poor executive functioning and poor scholastic
performance.
[68]
The child also suffered from headaches every one to two days a week
and had suffered pain that appeared two to three weeks
after the
accident. The head injury presented the child with permanent
neurocognitive deficits which were attributed to a mild
traumatic
brain injury.
[69]
Consequently the learned judge awarded a sum of R300 000 as fair
and adequate compensation for general damages.
[70]
In the Bikawuli case, the plaintiff (a 16 year old boy at the
time of the accident and 30 years old at the time of the
trial)
suffered a traumatic brain injury of moderate severity. Plaintiff
often felt dizzy and suffered from headaches two to three
times a
week, walked with difficulty and experienced pain in his lower back
and right thigh about four times a week. He became
anti social, did
not play sports any longer and could not remember the previous day’s
school lessons. He also sustained a
1.5cm scar on the vertex of his
head and multiple tiny scars on his face.
[71]
The learned judge awarded R135 000 for general damages during
May 2009.
[72]
According to Dr Segwapa’s report, plaintiff was a healthy adult
prior to the shooting. He played soccer and also
jogged. He now
experiences two headache attacks in a week which is localised to the
left side of his head. He takes over
the counter medication for
the headaches. The hearing capacity of the left ear is now poor.
Importantly, the doctor states that
plaintiff has no memory problems
and is of average intelligence.
[73]
In additions, Dr Segwapa’s report states that the plaintiff has
clinical features of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and
that of a
mild head injury with focal brain damage. The plaintiff also has 5%
risk of developing epilepsy. He had experienced acute
paid for two
weeks after the accident and now suffers from chronic post concussion
headaches, which in all probability, will not
abate. The amenities of
normal living were lost for approximately six weeks of the accident.
Longevity has not been affected.
[74]
In determining the general damages, the court has considered the
extent of the injuries and sequelae suffered by the plaintiff
and the
awards made in comparable cases.
[75]
It is settled law that a trial judge has a large discretion to award
a fair and adequate compensation to the injured party.
Comparisons
with previous awards made by our courts can be useful where the
circumstances are clearly shown to be broadly similar
in all material
respects – see Capital Insurance Company Limited v Richter
1963
(4) SA 901
(AD).
No
hard and fast rules can be laid down to review earlier comparable
awards.
[76]
The position has been summarised thus by the Appellate Division in
Protea Assurance Company Limited v Lamb
1971 (1) SA 530
AD at
535H-536B:
“
.
. . the Trial Court or the Court of Appeal, as the case may be, may
pay regard to comparable cases. It should be emphasised, however,
that this process of comparison does not take the form of a
meticulous examination of awards made in other cases in order to fix
the amount of compensation: nor should the process be allowed so to
dominate the enquiry as to become a fetter upon the Court’s
general discretion in such matter. Comparable cases, when available,
should rather be used to afford some guidance, in a general
way
towards assisting the Court in arriving an award which is not
substantially out of general accord with previous awards in broadly
similar cases, regard being had to all the factors which are
considered to be relevant in the assessment of general damages. At
the same time it may be permissible, in an appropriate case, to test
any assessment arrived at upon this basis by reference to
the general
pattern of previous awards in cases where the injuries and their
sequelae may have been either more serious or less
than those in the
case under consideration.”
[77]
The exercise is to compensate the victim and not to punish the
perpetrator. Comparisons are seldom genuinely helpful because
of
different set of facts in each case but is a useful guideline –
see Lamola v Minister of Safety and Security 2012
(6K6) QOD 111
(GSJ).
[78]
The parties had agreed to the amount of R4 520-51 in respect of
past medical expenses.
[79]
In respect of future medical expenses, I am guided by the report of
Hovsha.
[80]
The plaintiff had abandoned the claim in respect of future loss of
earnings and therefore no further comment is required
CONCLUSION
[81] I
find therefore that the plaintiff has established on a balance of
probabilities that he had sustained a traumatic head injury
caused by
bullet shrapnel fired by Warrant Officer Hadzi. I also find that the
plaintiff suffers from the sequelae of this injury
as stated by
Hovsha and Dr Segwapa in their respective reports as aforementioned.
[82] I
am of the opinion that an appropriate award for general damages is
the sum of R300 000.
ORDER
[83] In the result, the
defendant is ordered to make payment to the plaintiff as follows:
(a)
Past
medical expenses in the amount of R4 520-51;
(b)
Future
medical expenses in the amount of R63 250;
(c)
General
damages in the amount of R300 000; and
(d)
Interest
on the aforesaid sums calculated at the rate of 15.5% per cent per
annum from date of judgment to date of payment.
[84] The defendant is
also ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs, which costs shall
include the costs of all experts who filed
reports and who testified.
_______________________
A Y BHAYAT
ACTING JUDGE OF THE
SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT
COUNSEL FOR THE
PLAINTIFF
ADV Q R MASHABANE
PLAINTIFF’S
ATTORNEYS
RAMAIPADI ATTORNEYS
COUNSEL FOR THE
DEFENDANT
ADV T NTUNJA
DEFENDANT’S
ATTORNEYS
STATE ATTORNEY JHB
DATE OF
HEARING
17 - 18 FEBRUARY 2014
DATE OF
JUDGMENT
28 FEBRUARY 2014