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
>>
2018
>>
[2018] ZAGPJHC 559
|
|
I E v Road Accident Fund (39925/2016) [2018] ZAGPJHC 559 (21 August 2018)
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
DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO:
39925/2016
In
the matter between:
I
E
Plaintiff
and
ROAD
ACCIDENT FUND
Defendant
JUDGMENT
INGRID OPPERMAN j
INTRODUCTION
[1]
This is a
claim for damages suffered as a result of injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff, 19 years old at the time, in a motor vehicle
collision
which occurred on the 28
th
of August 2015.
The
issue of liability has been settled 80/20 in favour of the Plaintiff.
[2]
The issue of
future hospital and medical expenses has been settled in that the
Defendant has tendered an undertaking in terms of
section 17(4)(a) of
the Road Accident Fund Act, limited to 80%. The parties agreed the
past hospital and medical expenses at R
259 097.51.
[3]
The
remaining issues which fall for determination are general damages and
future loss of earnings or earning capacity. I am called
upon to
decide these issues having regard to a stated case placed before me
by agreement between the parties.
[4]
The
Plaintiff served and filed the following medico-legal reports:
Prof LA Chait
(Plastic and reconstructive Surgeon);
Dr
DS Ormond-Brown (Neuropsychologist);
Dr
Marlene de Graad (Orthopaedic Surgeon);
Dr
June Rossi (Educational Psychologist);
A
Cramer (Clinical Psychologist);
Catherine
Gradidge (Occupational Therapist);
Dr
Gian Marus (Neurosurgeon);
Marc
Peverett (Industrial Psychologist);
Dr
MO Strimling (Gastroenterologist). The Defendant did not serve and
file any medico-legal reports.
[5]
The stated
case, as ultimately agreed upon (there was some dispute initially),
accepts as correct the facts recorded and opinions
expressed in all
the expert reports, save for the opinions of Dr June Rossi and Mr
Marc Peverett.
STATED
CASE
[6]
Under this head, I set out,
verbatim, the case placed before me by the parties which was recorded
in a document and received as
exhibit ‘F’.
“
The
Plaintiff sustained the following injuries:
4.1
Head/brain
injury with occipital lacerations and 20 minutes loss of
consciousness;
4.2
Burst
laceration of the elbow;
4.3
Blunt
abdominal trauma with bowel rupture;
4.4
Open
fracture of the right patella;
4.5
Fracture
of the second toe of the left foot;
4.6
Posterior-cruciate
ligament tear of the left knee;
4.7
Meniscus
injury of the left knee.
ORTHOPAEDIC
INJURIES:
5.1
According
to Dr de Graad the Plaintiff sustained the following orthopaedic
injuries:
5.1.1
A
fracture of the patella (right knee) with bone loss, resulting in
muscle wasting of the right quadriceps muscle;
5.1.2
A
posterior-cruciate ligament tear of the left knee resulting in it
being clinically unstable and symptomatic. Due to the
unstable
knee, the Plaintiff has the potential to develop post-traumatic
osteoarthrosis of the left knee.
5.1.3
The
fracture of the proximal phalanx of the second toe, united with
angulation;
ABDOMINAL
INJURY:
6.1
The
Plaintiff suffered an abdominal injury with a rupture of her small
bowel. She underwent two abdominal operations while
she was in
hospital and part of her intestines were removed.
6.2
A
laparoscopy was performed on the 29
th
of August 2015 which confirmed perforation of the small bowel.
According to the operative notes, the laparoscopy was converted
to a
laparotomy because of the finding of a small bowel perforation. It is
not recorded whether any bowel was resected.
6.3
A
pencil drain with colostomy bag was inserted.
6.4
Review
of the various laparotomy reports indicates the development of severe
anaemia possibly reflecting intra-abdominal haemorrhage
and
significantly raised muscle ensigns and myoglobin consistent with the
polytrauma that were sustained. The renal function
remained
normal.
6.5
Apart
from the development of prolonged abdominal cramps and
diarrhoea,
her clinical course in hospital appeared to have been uncomplicated.
6.6
Enteral
nutrition was introduced on the 09
th
of September 2015.
6.7
The
outcome of the abdominal injury sustained is a supraumbilical
insertional hernia relating to the midline insertion scar.
6.8
The
hernia is in the right paracentral supraumbilical region and been
demonstrated to have narrow defects (approximately 10mm wide)
and to
contain omental fat.
6.9
Insertional
hernias are associated with a high risk of complications particularly
if the defect is narrow. Incarceration is
estimated to occur 6%
to 15% of cases and strangulation is estimated to occur in 2% of
cases. The occurrence of chronic recurrent
pain is also well
described.
6.10
In
Gastroenterologist, Dr Strimling's opinion, the Plaintiff may require
surgical repair of the insertional hernia either as an
elective
procedure or as an emergency, should a complication occur. She
should be referred to a specialist surgeon for assessment.
6.11
The
Plaintiff has also developed a syndrome of post-prandial abdominal
pain.
6.12
The
pain is related to abdominal injury. Further investigation must be
done to determine the cause of the abdominal pain and prevent
serious
complication and that should include CT scan.
SCARRING:
7.1
Prof
Chait examined the Plaintiff and noted the following scarring:
7.1.1
5 x
1cm hyper- and hypopigmented atrophic scar on the posterior scalp
region;
7.1.2
An
area of scarring on the upper lateral aspect of the right chest, this
measures approximately 3cm in diameter and includes a number
of
hyper- and hypopigmented atrophic scars;
7.1.3
A
2½cm in diameter hyper- and hypopigmented thickened scar on
the upper elbow region of the left-hand-side;
7.1.4
Just
below this there is a further area of scarring measuring
approximately 2cm in diameter, this scar is hyper- and hypopigmented
and atrophic;
7.1.5
She
has an area of scarring measuring 16 x 3cm extending from the xiphi
sternum to just above the pubic region, this scar is hyper-
and
hypopigmented, atrophic and has multiple cross-hatchings;
7.1.6
There
is a 1½cm in diameter indented atrophic scar on the upper
lateral aspect of the abdomen on the left-hand side;
7.1.7
An
area of scarring on the right knee region is present, this scar
measures approximately 13x 4cm, the scar is hyper- and hypopigmented
and atrophic;
7.1.8
There
is a 3 x 2cm area of scarring on the upper medial shin region on the
right-hand side;
7.1.9
She
has an area of scarring on the upper anterior shin region on the
left-hand side, this area measures approximately 5cm in diameter,
the
scar is hyper- and hypopigmented and atrophic;
7.1.10
A
3 x 2cm area of hyper- and hypopigmented atrophic scar on the
mid-shin region of the left-hand side;
7.1.11
A
1½cm in diameter hyper- and hypopigmented atrophic scar on the
lower posterior leg region on the left;
7.1.12
There
is a 1½cm diameter hyper- and hypopigmented atrophic scar on
the upper posterior calf region on the left.
7.2
Chait
indicates that the Plaintiff sustained extensive scarring over her
scalp, left elbow, anterior abdominal wall, both knee and
chin region
following her injury. Although some of these scars could be
improved with the above described procedures, the
Plaintiff will be
left with permanent serious disfigurements in the regions.
7.3
The
scars on her legs are situated where they could be subject to trauma
and breakdown. This could lead to protracted periods
requiring
dressings, hospitalisation and even further surgery.
7.4
Further
recreational activities and employment opportunities will need to
take place.
HEAD/BRAIN
INJURY AND
SEQUELAE
:
8.1
The
Plaintiff was assessed by Dr Ormond-Brown by way of screening
assessment who indicated that the Plaintiff sustained a brain
injury
of sufficient magnitude to create long-term problems and that
required detailed investigation.
8.2
Ormond-Brown
further indicated that the Plaintiff’s injuries were
significantly more serious than documented on the RAF1 claim
form.
She suffered a perforated small bowel, developed sepsis and required
a laparotomy. None of this was documented on the
RAF1 claim form.
8.3
Ormond-Brown
deals with the Plaintiff’s current symptoms of the brain injury
and noted the following symptoms that might be
due to cranio-cerebral
injury:
8.3.1
Headaches;
8.3.2
Difficulty
sustaining concentration while studying;
8.4
A
structured clinical interview revealed the following signs and
symptoms of relevance:
8.4.1
Vegetative
signs and symptoms;
a.
Headaches,
especially while studying on a computer;
b.
Fatigue.
She is always tired and sleeps more during the day;
8.4.2
Sensory
signs and symptoms – impaired vision;
8.4.3
Cognitive
signs and symptoms – distractibility and difficulty sustaining
concentration in class and the fact that the Plaintiff
needs to study
harder as it takes longer to learn and remember information and she
has difficulty retaining learnt material;
8.4.4
Emotional
signs and symptoms – she is anxious and vigilant when driving,
she is moody, she is irritable and quick to anger
particularly when
misunderstandings arise, frustration caused by her mental and
physical problems;
8.4.5
Tertiary
educational signs and symptoms - the Plaintiff was a first year
accountancy student when the accident occurred. She
used to get
distinctions, but failed accountancy after the accident. She
failed her first year but was granted an aegrotat
pass to her second
year which she passed, but her marks dropped between 15% and 20%.
She is currently in her third year but
is struggling with her
studies. She has to focus especially hard because of
concentration and short-term memory problems.
8.5
Ormond-Brown
indicates that there is evidence of an injury to the head or face as
a diagnosis of a head injury appears on the RAF
Claim form as well as
in the hospital records.
8.6
There
was evidence of a direct impact to her face and scalp in that she
sustained an occipital laceration and facial abrasion and
she also
had an abrasion of the chin.
8.7
Ormond-Brown
further notes that there was acute evidence of a brain injury in that
the Plaintiff suffered a loss of consciousness
and this was further
indicated in the hospital records. Her Glasgow Coma Scale was 15/15
when seen in the emergency unit.
This would usually classify
the primary brain injury as mild.
8.8
Ormond-Brown
notes that there was evidence of post-traumatic confusional state
(PTCS) and post-traumatic amnesia.
8.8.1
Her
last memories before the accident, concern seeing bright lights. She
does not recall the collision;
8.8.2
Her
first memories of the accident are coming to her senses in the
Intensive Care Unit about 14 hours later;
8.8.3
She
was dazed and confused for two weeks before normal mentation
returned;
8.8.4
The
duration of the PTCS would have been influenced by the effect of
hypnotic sedative medication.
8.9
Ormond-Brown
further notes chronic evidence of a brain injury in that her
performance on neuropsychological tests provided evidence
of
cognitive problems. She had difficulty with auditory divided
attention. Her ability to learn new verbal information
was
slightly below average but within the normal range.
8.10
Ormond-Brown
indicates the following implications:
8.10.1
She
sustained what superficially appears to have been a mild concussive
brain injury in the accident which in a healthy young woman
would
typically not be expected to result in long-term neuropsychological
problems;
8.10.2
Her recovery was
complicated by her abdominal injuries and her hypotension, anaemia
and low oxygen saturation levels;
8.10.3
The
combination of haemodynamic problems in conjunction with the recent
concussive brain injury may have created a situation in
which she
suffered mild-hypoxic ischemic brain injury, which might account for
her subjective experience of memory and concentration
problems;
8.10.4
Consistent
with that view, her performance on psychometric tests provided
evidence of subtle difficulties in those areas;
8.10.5
To
the degree that she has cognitive difficulties as a result of brain
dysfunction, any such problems are mild and may none the
less be of
functional significance in an accountancy student and warrant further
investigation.
9.1
The
Plaintiff was assessed by Dr Gian Marus, the Neurosurgeon who noted
that on account of the accident, the Plaintiff sustained
a mild
primary concussive (diffuse) brain injury.
9.2
On
assessment with regards to the Plaintiff’s pre-accident
condition, she reported that she had no pre-accident problems
involving the neurological system.
9.3
She
reported to Dr Marus that she had headaches even before the accident
but now this is more often. She describes a constant pressure
on the
brain feeling. She describes a pressure involving the whole scalp and
head. She has not noticed any precipitating or aggravating
factors.
She does not take any medication for her headaches. She indicates
that it is in the background all the time. Dr Marus
indicated that
headaches are not severe enough hence she is not taking any
medication for it.
9.4
She
is short-tempered and quarrelsome. She argues with her boyfriend as
well as her family. She further reported that she was a
bit
argumentative at school even before the accident but this has
increased since the accident.
9.5
Marus
notes that from the psychologist report, the Plaintiff had
“encephalitis” during 2014, however, she was able to
pass
and did well in her end-of-the-year Grade 12 examinations,
pre-accident.
9.6
On
the basis of available information, it does not appear as if there
were any significant pre-accident neurological problems.
9.7
Marus
notes with regards to the concussive brain injury that the Plaintiff
reported a period of post-traumatic amnesia. She
also has a
scar on her head indicating that she sustained direct trauma to the
cranium. Under these circumstances one would
conclude that she
sustained a concussive brain injury in the accident in question.
9.8
Marus
notes that with respect to determining the likely long-term cognitive
outcome, the following factors would be regarded as
relevant:
9.8.1
Her
initial level of consciousness according to the hospital records is
that she had a Glasgow Coma Scale of 15/15. This would
identify
a mild concussive brain injury;
9.8.2
A
review of hospital records would need to be done to ascertain what
medication she was on that could have also altered memory functions.
This task was undertaken in his addendum report where he concluded
that the hospital records confirm an initial period of loss
of
consciousness, therefore a primary concussive diffuse brain injury
was sustained.
9.9
With
respect to its severity, Marus notes a Glasgow Coma Score of 15/15 at
the scene of the accident by the ambulance personnel
and also
subsequently in hospital, the trauma/emergency department.
9.10
Upon
review of the hospital records, Marus notes that this does not
identify any subsequent alteration in cognitive abilities. A
diagnosis of a significant brain injury was never made during her
hospitalisation. It does not appear as if she was ever
sent for
any neurological or neurosurgical opinions.
9.11
Therefore,
on the basis of the reviewed information, Marus concludes that the
Plaintiff sustained a mild primary concussive (diffuse)
brain injury.
9.12
Marus
excludes a focal injury to the brain.
9.13
With
regards to the question of a secondary brain insult, Marus notes that
there was no critical period of hypoxia or hypotension.
More
importantly an ulceration in her neurological status was never
documented which would be central to the diagnosis of a secondary
brain insult occurring.
9.14
She
had two anaesthetic procedures that were not complicated by any
haemodynamic or respiratory factors. The recovery room
records
do not identify any unexpected alteration in the level of
consciousness that would be suggestive of an intra-operative
secondary neurological event.
9.15
Therefore,
based on the review of the hospital records, Marus notes that he is
unable to support any secondary brain injury occurring
in the
Plaintiff in the accident in question.
9.16
Marus
concludes that the Plaintiff sustained a mild uncomplicated primary
concussive (diffuse) brain injury. He notes that
the usual
outcome after this severity brain injury is that the majority of
patients makes an uneventful recovery.
9.17
In
this case however, Marus notes that there are multiple other factors
as mentioned in his report that are interfering with her
mental
well-being, psychological and emotional stability.
9.18
Under
these circumstances one would consider that these factors would be
intrusive and hence cause some mental underperformance.
NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL
ASSESSMENT
10.1
The
Plaintiff was further assessed by A Cramer who performed a
neuropsychological assessment.
10.2
Cramer
notes that from a neurocognitive perspective, the Plaintiff is likely
to have difficulty completing her studies as a result
of the
following factors:
10.2.1
Limitations
and functions in attention and concentration are likely to hamper her
efficiency on tasks of a clerical nature, thereby
rendering her more
error-prone than before.
10.2.2
Her
difficulties retaining larger quantities of verbal information are
expected to have a significant impact
on
her studies, and ability to recall learned information.
10.2.3
Her
low mood may hamper her levels of drive and motivation and together
with her ongoing experience of fatigue, will severely hamper
her
productivity.
10.3
Cramer
notes that the Plaintiff therefore has been rendered academically
vulnerable following the accident. The same factors
that are
expected to have an impact on her studies, would be likely to negate
her performance in any place of work. She has
therefore also
been rendered vulnerable from an occupational perceptive and has thus
suffered some loss of potential.
10.4
Cramer
notes that the Plaintiff suffers from symptoms of depression and
post-traumatic anxiety and that psychological intervention
is
required in order to address these issues.
10.5
Cramer
notes that the Plaintiff suffered a significant loss of amenities as
a result of the accident in that she suffers from ongoing
pain and
discomfort, along with headaches and fatigue. She is no longer
able to participate in previously enjoyed physical
activities and her
academic performance has declined following the accident.
10.6
She
is now required to put extra effort into her studies but continues to
achieve below the level she was able to accomplish prior
to the
accident. She is self-conscious about her residual scarring and this
is expected to have an impact on her self-esteem.
The Plaintiff
is likely to derive less enjoyment from lifes amenities as a result
of the accident.
10.7
She
consulted with a psychologist at the age of 15 years and attended
three to four sessions of psychotherapy in order to help her
deal
with parental issues.
CURRENT
COMPLAINTS:
The
Plaintiff’s current complaints were recorded in Gradidge's
report as follows:
11.1
Physical
Complaints:
11.1.1
She struggles with
pain in both hands;
11.1.2
The
Plaintiff complains of lower back pain if she sits for long periods
of time;
11.1.3
The
Plaintiff experiences headaches approximately every second day;
11.1.4
If she eats too
much or if she eats strong food then she experiences cramps in her
stomach.
11.2
Cognitive
Complaints:
The Plaintiff reports poor memory and
concentration since the accident.
11.3
Psychological:
11.3.1
The
Plaintiff reported that she suffers from anxiety when travelling in a
vehicle and is constantly fearful of another accident
taking place.
11.3.2
The
Plaintiff is more irritable since the accident.
11.4
Functional:
11.4.1
She
can no longer play ringball (previously having played for South
Africa);
11.4.2
The
Plaintiff can no longer play netball;
11.4.3
She
can no longer run;
11.4.4
The
Plaintiff struggles with sitting on a airplane for long periods of
time;
11.4.5
The
Plaintiff cannot walk long distances;
11.4.6
She
struggles to climb up and down stairs;
11.4.7
The
Plaintiff feels she cannot be as adventurous as she was previously.
11.5
She
feels uncomfortable in her body, as she no longer exercises. She
gained weight and lost muscle after the accident. She has an
abdominal scar across her abdomen, which she is self-concious about
and she is no longer comfortable wearing a bikini, which she
would
have done before the accident.
11.6
The
Plaintiff has s
tomach
problems necessitating that she uses Movicol continuously.
TREATMENT
RECEIVED:
12.1
De
Graad described the treatment received by the Plaintiff as follows:
12.1.1
The Plaintiff was
transported from the scene of the accident by ambulance to Medi
Clinic Vereeniging;
12.1.2
The patella
fracture was treated with debridement, open reduction and internal
fixation;
12.1.3
The abdominal
injury was managed by general surgeon. She had more than one
surgical procedure. She had a colostomy;
12.1.4
Her mother
indicated that she was in Intensive Care Unit for about two weeks and
then in the general ward for about 2 weeks. She
was however moved to
the ward on the 2
nd
September 2015, which was 5 days later
;
12.1.5
After she was
discharged from hospital she had another surgical procedure on her
right knee where the wire was removed;
12.1.6
At or about
April/May 2016 she started experiencing problems with her left knee.
She consulted her Orthopaedic Surgeon and a Knee
Surgeon. She
was diagnosed with a sprain of the anterior cruciate ligament and a
Grade III tear of the posterior cruciate
ligament. This was an injury
to the lateral meniscus.
12.1.7
The left knee
injury was treated conservatively with a brace.
FUTURE
TREATMENT ANTICIPATED:
13.1
Dr
Graad notes that provision must be made for conservative treatment of
the right knee. She still has two screws in the patella.
It is most
unlikely that the screws will ever need to be removed. For
purpose of the report, provision can be made for the
removal of the
internal fixation should it become symptomatic at a later stage.
13.2
With
regards to the Plaintiff’s left knee, de Graad notes that
provision must be made for reconstruction of the posterior
cruciate
ligament of the left knee. At the time of the surgery the lateral
meniscus tear can be addressed.
13.3
Furthermore,
provision must be made for a total knee replacement within the next
20 – 30 years. After the knee replacement,
she will be
unable to work for six weeks.
13.4
De
Graad notes that provision must be made for surgical correction of
the angulation of the proximal phalanx of the second toe,
should a
painful callus develop.
13.5
Conservative
treatment should be provided for, for coccyx pain.
13.6
Cramer
notes that psychological intervention is recommended in order to
address the Plaintiff’s symptoms of depression and
post-traumatic anxiety.
13.7
Strimling
recommends that provision be made for investigation and treatment of
the chronic intractable gastrointestinal complaint
resulting from the
abdominal injury as well as for future complications resulting from
the abdominal injury.
GENERAL
DAMAGES:
The
Plaintiff sustained the following injuries:
14.1
Mild
Concussive brain injury;
14.2
Burst
laceration of the elbow;
14.3
Blunt
abdominal trauma with bowel rupture;
14.4
Open
fracture of the right patella;
14.5
Fracture
of the second toe of the left foot;
14.6
Posterior-cruciate
ligament tear of the left knee;
14.7
Meniscus
injury of the left knee.
The
parties undertake to make submissions on case law in respect of
general damages."
[7]
That then, what was placed
before me by way of a stated case.
[8]
The Plaintiff called two
witnesses, Dr June Rossi, an educational psychologist and Mr Marc
Richard Peverett, an industrial psychologist.
The Defendant called no
witnesses.
FUTURE LOSS OF EARNINGS
D
r
Rossi
[9]
Dr Rossi confirmed the
correctness of her report dated 17 September 2017.
The
Plaintiff was assessed by Dr Rossi who indicated that although
psychological intervention may be of some benefit in alleviating
psychological symptoms, the Plaintiff's current neurocognitive
difficulties are permanent.
[10]
Her
assessment revealed physical complaints,
p
ain
and reduced mobility,
headaches,
s
carring
and
p
roneness
to illness. Psychological
sequelae
considered included
l
ability,
d
epression,
anxiety and low self-esteem. Cognitive and educational weaknesses
considered included reduced concentration, verbal recall
and list
learning, visual conceptualisation and comprehension.
[11]
Dr Rossi
noted that headaches are common following even a mild concussive head
injury although these usually follow intensive screen
studies. She
conceded that Dr Marus’s report revealed that the Plaintiff
suffered from headaches prior to the accident and
that then too,
these headaches were not medicated.
[12]
Dr Rossi
noted that the Plaintiff’s mother confirmed that her daughter
suffers from emotional lability and depression. Trauma,
pain and
pre-existing psychological vulnerability might have contributed to
her current psychological problems. She conceded that
it was possible
that an absent father and Plaintiff’s mother's divorce from her
second husband, might have intensified the
accident’s traumatic
effects. Dr Rossi also accepted that pain from orthopaedic
injuries generally contributes to depression
.
[13]
Dr Rossi
noted that the Plaintiff's school history, family educational levels
and current intelligence tests results are ways of
establishing
pre-accident intellectual functioning. Pre-accident the
Plaintiff was physically, cognitively and psychologically
normal. The
Plaintiff passed all Grades at school, obtained a B-degree level
senior certificate pass and was studying a BCom Degree
at the time of
the accident with the intention of doing Honours in accountancy and
sitting the Saica Board examination. Her pre-morbid
attainment
indicates high average intellect. Her mother has a diploma in
Financial Management and while her father’s five
siblings all
matriculated, he only passed Grade 6/7. Her pre-morbid
intelligence is estimated at high average. Pre-morbidly,
she opines
the Plaintiff would have passed a BCom and Honours in accountancy.
She also testified that it was likely that she would
have passed the
SAICA Board examination. Post accident, she held the view that she
had a 5% chance of passing such examination.
[14]
Dr
Rossi indicated that while the Plaintiff’s matric results
showed high to above average potential, she now shows problems
with
language comprehension which involves the higher order thinking
processes of comparison, transfer of concept from one situation
to
another, categorization and reasoning, and verbal recall which will
affect her university study.
[15]
Dr
Rossi noted that the Plaintiff’s current IQ is average which
indicates a decline in intelligence. This reflects the
influence of emotional difficulties which stem from her physical
injuries, pre-existing psychological vulnerabilities and the
possibility of a more significant brain injury. She testified
that the Plaintiff’s current neuropsychological profile
is
inconsistent with her pre-morbid matriculation results.
[16]
Post-morbidly,
she returned to her studies and received a condoned pass to her
second year as she did not pass accountancy. Defendant
argued that
because the court does not have her class results to show how she was
doing prior to the accident, this fact should
not carry too much
weight. I will not place too much significance on this fact.
The Plaintiff acknowledged to Dr Rossi experiencing
greater
difficulties studying after the accident and especially with the
increased volume and complexity of her course. The Defendant
argued
that the academic results for 2015 and 2016 do not support the
conclusions reached by Dr Rossi. Dr Rossi stated in her report
that
she did not believe that the Plaintiff would obtain a BCom Degree,
however, she might not achieve sufficiently high marks
to be accepted
into the Honours programme. She also stated that she
would have to repeat her third year to improve
her marks to be
considered and might still not achieve the selection. Both these
predictions turned out to be incorrect as the
Plaintiff passed at her
first attempt and is busy with her honours. Dr Rossi was
adamant that the Plaintiff was an exceptional
young woman who was
very determined. She referred by way of example to the
Plaintiff who, a mere month after the accident
and whilst being
confined to a wheel chair, had arranged lifts for herself in her
wheel chair to get to her lectures. Dr Rossi
opined that, despite
this, in her view, the Plaintiff if she were to obtain her Honours
Degree, might pass the SAICA First Board
examination on a second
attempt. She expressed grave reservations in respect of the
Plaintiff’s prospects for passing the
second and final,
notoriously difficult, board examination.
[17]
Dr
Rossi noted that the traumatic accident has impacted her physically,
cognitively and psychologically. Her decreased mobility
and
depression have rendered her physically and emotionally vulnerable
and she has lost confidence which will affect the actualisation
of
her potential and render her emotionally vulnerable in the future.
Many of the experts recommended psychotherapy which should
help with
the recovery process and which would help the Plaintiff to deal with
her complaints. There was no suggestion by any of
the experts that
this would enable her to recover to her pre-accident position.
[18]
In
evidence, Dr Rossi concluded that the Plaintiff may complete the
honours after her second attempt and may complete the first
SAICA
exam after the second attempt, but she indicated that there is only a
5% chance that she will pass the second SAICA exam
and, as such,
there is a negligible chance that the Plaintiff will qualify as a
chartered accountant.
[19]
Dr
Rossi
impressed
as a knowledgeable and experienced expert witness in her field of
expertise. She was objective and unbiased in her
opinion and
made necessary concessions when required. She was neither dogmatic
nor stubborn in her approach and provided the court
with the
assistance it required of an expert in this matter.
She
conceded the criticisms leveled by the Defendant’s counsel
against her, when with merit.
[20]
A
n
expert witness is employed to assist the court in deciding issues in
which the court does not have the ordinary and requisite
expertise.
The opinion of an expert witness must be well-grounded and reasoned
.
Dr
Rossi was such a witness and assisted the court in assessing the
Plaintiff’s educational and occupational prospects
,
and I have very little hesitation in accepting her opinions.
Mr Peverett
[21]
Mr Peverett
dealt with the Plaintiff’s family educational and occupational
details and noted that the Plaintiff’s mother
has a Grade 12, a
diploma in financial management and works as a bookkeeper at Sir
Fruit.
Her
grandmother has a typing qualification, is retired and was a former
head of department at Metco Tool. Her grandfather was a
qualified
fitter and turner and worked at Modi Power Transmissions as a mine
representative. Her stepfather has a Grade 12 and
is a manager at BB
Bos.
Her
sister has a Grade 12 as well as an IT and safety officer diploma and
works as a safety officer at REM.
Her
stepsister is in Grade 1.
Her
stepbrother is in Grade 7.
Her
partner has a computer engineering degree and is a student.
Mr Peverett also had regard to the
fact that t
he
Plaintiff had successfully completed high school and was within her
first year as a BCom accounting student when the accident
took place.
He commented on the fact that
t
he
Plaintiff had worked very hard to complete her first year and had
also completed her second year in 2016, her third year
in 2017 and is
currently busy with her Honours in accountancy.
[22]
Mr Peverett
emphasised that the Plaintiff had returned to North West University
in October 2015 whilst wheelchair bound. She
had passed her
second semester exams. In 2016 until 2017 she completed her
second and third years successfully. Currently
she is
completing a one-year post-graduate honours in chartered accounting.
He considered that
the
Plaintiff had failed every class test, with her average within
the 30% to 40% range compared to the class average of 40%
to 50%.
He had regard to the requirement that the Plaintiff required a
minimum of 50% for each subject in order to obtain
her Honours
Degree.
[23]
He
noted
that she had been offered a position from May 2019 at PKF Accounting,
Johannesburg to complete her studies, the duration of
which is three
years. Her proposed gross income would be R15 000 per month.
S
he
would be required to complete two examinations. These include
the initial test of competence and the assessment of professional
competence.
[24]
Mr
Peverett
secured information from the South African Institute of Chartered
Accountants (‘
SAICA
’),
which information was placed before me by agreement between the
parties, which indicated the following:
"To qualify entry to ITC, you
must have passed the CTA of equivalent CA (SA) exam. This
generally means that candidates
for the ITC during their first year
of their training contracts if they studied full time or the fourth
year if they have been
studying part time. A CTA is valid for 3
years. This means candidates will be eligible to sit for ITC
exam for a period
of 3 consecutive years starting the year after
obtaining a CTA or equivalent qualification. There are 2
examination opportunities
per year for the ITC namely in January and
June each year. This means candidates have a maximum of 6
attempts at the ITC.
To qualify for an entry at the APC, a
candidate must have (1) passed the ITC and (2) completed a minimum of
20 months of a registered
training contract with an accredited
office, by the beginning of the month in which the assessment is
written and (3) successfully
completed a Professional Programme with
a registered provider. The Professional Programme remains valid
for a period of 3
consecutive years, which means that the APC must be
passed within those 3 (three) years; otherwise you will have to
complete a
Professional Programme again".
[25]
Mr Peverett noted that she was
earmarked to write
the ITC in January 2019 and her APC in November 2019. PKF
Accounting would finance her exams. Should
she not successfully
pass the ITC examination she would be liable to refund the company.
The same arrangements applied to
the APC examination and the 2018
registration fee indicated of R5,181.30.
[26]
He
considered the fact that
i
n
terms of her accident related injuries, the Plaintiff continued to
experience pain in both knees, difficulty climbing stairs,
frequent
stomach cramps, concentration difficulties, fear when driving,
fatigue and the need for increased sleep, distractibility
as well as
forgetfulness.
[27]
Mr
Peverett,
having regard to the medico-legal reports compiled by the medical
experts postulated the pre- and post accident scenarios,
as follows:
Quantification of earnings but for
the accident
[28]
Mr Peverett
accepted that the Plaintiff's pre-accident potential was of high to
above average intellect.
Prior
to the accident the Plaintiff had, from the beginning of 2015,
commenced a BCom Degree at Northwest University. He further
accepted
that it was
t
he
Plaintiff’s aspiration to register as a Chartered Accountant.
As per the SAICA conditions the Plaintiff would have
to have
completed her BCom Degree, a Post Graduate Honours in Chartered
Accountancy as well as the Saica examinations with an associated
minimum of 20 (twenty) months training at a registered provider.
Her registration with SAICA as a Chartered Accountant was
deemed
probable from the end of 2020 considering the Plaintiff's
socio-economic background, pre-accident potential and assessed
psychometric profile.
[29]
Following
the completion of her Honours Degree at the end of 2018, the
Plaintiff would have entered employment as an Article Clerk
to
complete the 3 (three) year practical component of her training with
a registered institution. Earnings in 2019 would
have beeen
secured at the skilled level of functioning, with derived income
congruent with the contract the Plaintiff has been
offered from
January 2019 at PKF Accounting, Johannesburg, to complete her
articles.
The
contract duration is 3 (three) years with a gross income of R15 000
per month. Once she completed her 3 (three) years
articles, the
Plaintiff would have earned income at the C4 / 5 Paterson
Level (guaranteed package fiftieth percentile, 2018
Deloitte
National Remuneration Guide).
[30]
But for the
accident the Plaintiff's advancement plateau would be indicated at
the D5 Paterson Level (guaranteed package fiftieth
percentile) of
organisational functioning. Inflationary increases would be
indicated thereafter prior to her normal retirement
age.
He noted normal
retirement age as that of being 65 (sixty five) years.
[31]
I accept the
pre-accident scenario scetched by Mr Peverett. Indeed, so did the
Defendant.
Quantification of Earnings having
regard to the accident
[32]
Post-accident
the Plaintiff completed her BCom Accounting Degree at the end of
2017. Currently she is completing her 1 (one)
year Honours in
Chartered Accounting. Mr Peverett had regard to the fact that,
to date the Plaintiff has failed every class
test. Her average
marks fell within 30% to 40%. The Plaintiff requires a minimum
of 50% for each subject to obtain
her Honours Degree.
Based on her
undergraduate marks, the Plaintiff has been offered a position from
January 2019 at PKF Accounting, Johannesburg to
complete her
articles. This contract duration is 3 (three) years,
earning a gross income of R15 000 per month.
D
uring
her anticipated articles, she is required to complete 2 (two)
examinations. These include the initial test of competence
ITC
and the assessment of professional competence APC. She has been
earmarked to write the ITC in January and her APC in
November 2019.
PKF Accounting will finance her exams costing. However, she is
liable to pay this amount back should
she not successfully pass
examinations. Her article contract will only commence after
successful completion of her Honours
Degree.
[33]
Mr
Peverett
takes the physical fallouts, the neuropsychological expert opinions
as well as the confirmed cognitive limitations and
symptoms of
depression and anxiety into consideration in plotting the
post-accident scenario.
[34]
He scetches
two scenarios:
At worst:
[35]
Should the
Plaintiff not successfully pass her Honours Degree she would not
progress towards becoming a Chartered Accountant.
Employment entry
thereafter in a financial role from 2019 would be indicated at
B5 / C1 Paterson Level. In the context
of her
neurocognitive profile and psychological difficulties, he does not
deem advancement beyond the C3 Paterson Level probable
prior to age
45 (forty five) years.
At best:
[36]
Mr
Peverett
noted that should the Plaintiff pass her Honours Programme
post-morbidly, the Plaintiff, according to Dr Rossi, might be
able to
pass the first SAICA Board Exam on a second attempt. This would
probably put psychological stress on her, preventing
her from passing
the second and final Board Examination.
[37]
In this
scenario, Mr Peverett accepts that the Plaintiff is deemed
vulnerable psychologically as well as less cognitively
efficient and
that
t
he
Plaintiff's case of progression and ability to effectively function
within the C upper and D Paterson job grade is significantly
compromised. In support hereof he has regard to the fact that
she is currently failing her exams. Future academic progression
seems that she might need to repeat her Honours year as well as
future exam repeats of her SAICA Exams, the costs of which she
would
be liable for. In this scenario it is probable that the
Plaintiff will find it difficult to also secure a practical
training
programme in a competitive and reputable accounting firm where
article earnings similar to what has been offered to her
at the
C4 / C5 Paterson Level of corporate sector earnings.
In terms of her earnings progression in this scenario,
income
progression would probably align to corporate sector guaranteed
package income at the C1 Paterson Level with progression
indicated at
the C5 Paterson Level prior to age 45 (forty five) years.
[38]
With regards
to both scenarios, Mr Peverett considers a significantly higher
post-morbid contingency applicable with regard to future
earnings
loss.
Defendant’s argument
[39]
The
defendant closed its case without calling any witnesses. It was then
argued that the pre-and post accident scenarios are the
same –
all that is required is a bit of psychotherapy.
Conclusion
[40]
The
undisputed evidence of all the experts is that the Plaintiff’s
IQ has dropped. The undisputed evidence of all the experts
is further
that, although psychological intervention may be of some benefit in
alleviating the Plaintiff’s psychological
symptoms, the
Plaintiff’s current neurocognitive difficulties are permanent.
Nothing that has been put to any of the witnesses
who testified nor
any concessions made by them has given me any cause to doubt this
fundamental premise upon which this trial was
run.
[41]
Calculations
have been performed by the Plaintiff’s actuary Gerard Jacobson
and the correctness of the calculations have not
been disputed nor
the contingencies applied.
[42]
Regrettably,
I am persuaded, having regard to the facts and opinions of all the
experts which facts and opinions I accept, that
the most probable
scenario is the ‘worst’ scenario scetched by Mr Peverett.
Hopefully, the Plaintiff’s sheer
determination and ‘
guts
’
as Dr Rossi described the Plaintiff’s character, will prove me
wrong. The probabilities though, do not favour such
an outcome.
[43]
The
scenarios pan out as follows:
Basis
I:
Worst
Case Scenario
Future
Loss
Value
of Income but for accident
R 16 927 148
20%
Contingency Deduction
R 3 385 430
R
13 541 718
Value
of Income having regard to accident
R 4 373 525
30%
Contingency Deduction
R 1 312 058
R 3
061 467
NET
FUTURE LOSS:
R
10 480 251
This
claim is however affected by the
Road Accident Fund Amendment Act 19
of 2005
. The annual loss at the time of the accident amounted to R
234 366 per annum. This limit was accounted for throughout Mr
Jacobson’s
calculations. Due to the limitation of the losses,
the loss of income reduces to the
following:
NET
FUTURE LOSS:
R
8 958 938
Basis
II :
Best
Case Scenario
Future
Loss
Value
of Income but for accident
R 16 927 148
20%
Contingency Deduction
R 3 385 430
R
13 541 718
Value
of Income having regard to accident
R 10 022 418
30%
Contingency Deduction
R 3 006 725
R 7
015 693
NET
FUTURE LOSS:
R
6 526 025
[44]
The
Plaintiff is therefore, and because I accept the worst case scenario
projection, entitled to 80% of
R8
958 938.
GENERAL DAMAGES
[45]
The
Plaintiff sustained the following injuries:
a
m
ild
concussive brain injury (with the
seculae
more severe than one would ordinarily expect); a burst laceration of
the elbow;
a b
lunt
abdominal trauma with bowel rupture;
an
o
pen
fracture of the right patella;
a
f
racture of
the second toe of the left foot;
a
posterior-cruciate
ligament tear of the left knee and a meniscus injury of the left
knee.
[46]
The
Plaintiff was an active and sporty young woman prior to the accident.
She was a South African ring ball champion. She was comfortable
with
wearing a two piece bathing costume and now has scarring which she
prefers to cover when in public. She can not do sport anymore
and has
gained weight. The Plaintiff is aware of what she is loosing. It
would appear that she is in denial about what has happened
to her. Dr
Rossi explained how she down plays her
seculae
and that she resists taking medication. She is moody, unstable,
anxious, depressed and suffers from a low-self-esteem.
[47]
The
Plaintiff seeks an order for General Damages in the amount of R800
000 and relies on a number of authorities including:
47.1.
Chatterpaul
v The Road Accident Fund
(unreported
judgment) NGHC (‘
Chatterpaul
’)
which judgment was handed down on the 22
nd
of September 2016
by Justice Tolmay. The Plaintiff in Chatterpaul, was a 30 (thirty)
year old attorney who suffered
a brief period of post-traumatic
amnesia; bruising on the lateral side of the chest and anterior
abdominal wall together with multiple
abrasions; an undisplaced
fracture to the lateral wall of the left orbit followed by swelling
of the upper and lower eyelids; a
lateral herniation of the C6 to C7
disk to the left; a minor concussive head injury; emotional shock and
trauma and multiple lacerations.
She
was admitted
to ICU overnight for observation, given pain medication and
discharged the following day where she was booked off for
2 (two) to
3 (three) weeks.
The
Plaintiff suffered from anxiety, mild global weakness of the left
arm, pain in her jaw, pain in her right knee when she runs
at the
gym, severe headaches approximately twice a month, left shoulder and
scapula cramping and moderate depression.
The
court awarded R600 000 to the Plaintiff in 2016 (2018 value is R672
000)
47.2.
The
Plaintiff argued that her injuries are more severe than those in the
Chatterpaul matter in that the Plaintiff suffered from
more severe
neuropsychological and neurocognitive
sequelae
,
suffered bilateral injuries to her knees, had part of her intestines
removed as a result of her abdominal trauma which had led
to sepsis,
and suffered more severe lacerations. I agree with this comparison.
47.3.
Mngomezulu
v The Road Accident Fund
2012
(6A4) QOD 95 (GSJ). In this matter the Plaintiff sustained compound
right tibia – fibula fractures; a closed chest injury
with lung
contusion; a 30cm laceration on the right thigh and a moderate head
injury.
The
Plaintiff had reported the following sequelae:
pain
and weakness in the right leg when walking;
mild
memory difficulty;
difficulty
sustaining concentration, distractibility;
has
become impatient and irritable;
mood
swings of depressive phases;
poor
self-image or feelings of uselessness;
disturbed
sleep pattern with mid-cycle insomnia;
daytime
fatigue;
increase
in weight;
s
ituational
anxiety;
diminished
enjoyment of life and concerns about the future.
The
court awarded R600 000 in respect of the Plaintiff's General Damages
in 2011 (the 2018 value is an amount of R885 000).
The
Plaintiff submitted that this case was in line with the Plaintiff's
injuries and
sequelae.
Again, this conclusion can not be faulted.
47.4.
Chetty v
The Road Accident Fund
2012
(6J2) QOD 115 (KZD):
In
this matter the Plaintiff was 19 (nineteen) years of age studying for
a Diploma in Quantity Surveying at the time of the accident.
The Plaintiff sustained an injury to the left side of the chest with
intrusion of air into the pleural cavity between the lungs
and rib
cage (a haemothorax). This had to be drained and healed causing
permanent scarring;
the
abdominal injuries which required surgery by a General Surgeon
involved the removal of a ruptured spleen;
a
fracture of
the right femur which required surgery by an Orthopaedic Surgeon
involving an open reduction and internal fixation;
a
diffuse brain injury resulting in an outpouring of adrenalin and
other chemical agents causing ossification of the left elbow;
the Plaintiff was
left with stiffness in the left elbow; the Plaintiff was left with a
complex combination of neuropsychological
deficits, some of which
were quite subtle but all of which in combination had a devastating
impact on his interpersonal relationships
and his ability to follow a
career or earn a living and had an impact on his quality of life.
The court awarded
an amount of R600 000 in 2012 (this amount translates to an amount of
R838 000 in 2018.)
T
he
Plaintiff submitted that her injuries are similar to the
aforementioned Plaintiff's injuries and that such an amount would be
justified. The Plaintiff in the case under consideration’s
injuries were indeed similar.
[48]
The
Plaintiffs counsel suggested that an amount of R800 000 in general
damages is adequate in the circumstances whereas the Defendant's
counsel contended that general damages in the region of R700 000 be
awarded.
[49]
It is
now recognised that awards pre- 2003 are not representative or
accurate benchmarks as there is now a tendency for awards to
be
higher than they were in the past. See
Road
Accident Fund v Marunga
2003 (5) SA 164
(SCA) at 170F-G;
Schoombee
v Road Accident Fund
(unreported case no. 18426/2007), South Gauteng judgment delivered by
Gautschi AJ on 24 February 2012 at para 14.
[50]
In
the
Schoombee
matter, the Plaintiff had suffered a mild to moderate concussive
brain injury combined with signs of more focal (right-sided) frontal
dysfunction. His left knee was immobilised in a knee brace for a
period of three months during which he had to use crutches and
after
the knee brace was removed, he used crutches for a further month.
An award of R700 000 was made.
[51]
In
Torres
v Road Accident Fund
(unreported case no. 29294/04), South Gauteng High Court, a 24-year
old male, 20 years old at the time of injury had sustained
significant neurocognitive and neuro behavioural deficits. He
suffered from depression and adjustment disorder. His
successful
career in jewellery design had been limited to sympathetic
employment. The general damages that were awarded to him was
R600
000.
[52]
In
Herbst
v Road Accident Fund
(Witwatersrand Local Division: Case No: 3035/2004) the plaintiff was
a 34-year old male cyclist and specialist anaesthetist.
The Plaintiff suffered severe brain damage and he was functionally
permanently unemployable with no residual earning capacity.
An
amount of R600 000 was awarded.
[53]
In
the circumstances, in this highly inexact science, I consider R800
000 an appropriate award under this head.
COSTS
[54]
This matter
ran for far longer than it should have. Indeed, it should, having
regard to what I ultimately found, not have run at
all. Much time was
wasted when the intial ‘stated case’ was withdrawn and an
amended version agreed upon. The Defendant
is in charge of the public
purse and should approach this type of litigation conscious of this
fact. I intend expressing my displeasure
by limiting Defendant’s
counsel and her instructing attorney’s fees on trial, to 1 day
only.
[55]
The amounts
in the order reflect the 80/20 liability ratio agreed to by the
parties.
ORDER
[56]
In
the result, I make the following order:
1.
The Defendant shall pay to the
Plaintiff the sum of R 8 014 428.41, in respect of the Plaintiff's
claim against the Defendant for
the following heads of damages:
a.
Past Hospital and Medical
Expenses R207 278.01
b.
Past and Future Loss of
Earnings/Earning Capacity R 7 167
150.40
c.
General
Damages R
640 000
2.
In the event of the aforesaid
amount not being paid timeously, the Defendant shall be liable for
interest on the amount at the rate
of 10% per annum, calculated from
the 15th calendar day after the date of this Order to date of
payment.
3.
The Defendant shall furnish the
Plaintiff with an Undertaking in terms of
Section 17(4)(a)
of
Act 56 of 1996 for payment of 80% of the costs of future
accommodation of the Plaintiff in a hospital or nursing home or
treatment of or rendering of a service or supplying of goods to the
Plaintiff resulting from a motor vehicle accident on 28th August
2015, to compensate the Plaintiff in respect of the said costs after
the costs have been incurred and upon proof thereof.
4.
The Defendant shall pay the
Plaintiff’s taxed or agreed party and party costs on the High
Court scale in respect of both the
merits and quantum, subject
thereto that:
a.
In the event that the costs are
not agreed:
i.
The Plaintiff shall serve a
Notice of Taxation on the Defendant’s attorney of record;
ii.
The Plaintiff shall allow the
Defendant 14 (FOURTEEN) days from date of the allocatur to make
payment of the taxed costs; and
iii.
Should payment not be effected
timeously, the Plaintiff will be entitled to recover interest at the
rate of 10% per annum on the
taxed or agreed costs from date of
allocatur to date of final payment.
b.
Such costs shall include, as
allowed by the Taxing Master:
i.
The costs incurred in obtaining
payment of the amounts mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 2 hereof;
ii.
The costs of and consequent to
the appointment of counsel, including, but not limited to the
following: for trial, including, but
not limited to counsel’s
full fee for 11, 12 and 13 June 2018, and the preparation and
reasonable attendance fee of counsel
for attending the
Court-Sanctioned Pre-Trial conference;
iii.
The costs of all medico-legal,
radiological, MRI, sonar, pathologist, actuarial and addendum reports
and/or forms obtained, as well
as such reports and/or forms furnished
to the Defendant and/or its attorneys, as well as all reports and/or
forms in their possession
and all reports and/or forms contained in
the Plaintiff’s bundles, including, but not limited to the
following:
·
Dr M De Graad, Orthopaedic
Surgeon
·
Dr de Villiers Radiologist
·
Mr Ormond-Brown,
Neuropsychologist
·
Annelies Cramer, Clinical
Psychologist
·
Dr Marus, Neurosurgeon
·
June Rossi, Educational
Psychologist (including preparation, reservation and attendance fee
for 11th and 12th June 2018)
·
Dr Strimling, Specialist
Physician
·
Ms M Spavins, Occupational
Therapist
·
Mr M Peverett, Industrial
Psychologist (including preparation, reservation and attendance fee
for 11th and 12th June 2018)
·
Mr G Jacobson, Actuary
iv.
The reasonable and taxable
preparation, qualifying and reservation fees, if any, in such amount
as allowed by the Taxing Master,
of the above experts;
v.
The reasonable costs incurred
by and on behalf of the Plaintiff in attending the medico-legal
examinations of both parties’
experts;
vi.
The costs of and consequent to
the parties’ experts holding joint meetings and compiling
minutes of joint meetings, if any;
vii.
The costs of and consequent to
the Plaintiff’s trial bundles and witness bundles, including
the costs of 6 (six) copies thereof;
viii.
The Plaintiff is declared a
necessary witness and therefore the Plaintiff’s reasonable
travelling expenses to attend the trial,
as allowed by the Taxing
Master; and
ix.
The costs of and consequent to
the holding of a pre-trial conference.
5.
The amounts referred to herein
will be paid to the Plaintiff’s attorneys, A Wolmarans
Incorporated, by direct transfer
into their trust account, details of
which are the following:
NAME
OF ACCOUNT HOLDER: A
WOLMARANS INC
NAME
OF BANK & BRANCH:
ABSA BANK, NORTHCLIFF
ACCOUNT
NUMBER:
[…]
BRANCH
CODE:
632 005
TYPE
OF ACCOUNT:
CHEQUE (TRUST)
REFERENCE: MRS
SCHMAHL/MAT1188
6.
Defendant’s
counsel and attorney of record’s trial fee, is limited to 1
day.
___________________________
I
OPPERMAN
Judge
of the High Court
Gauteng
Division, Johannesburg
Heard:
11,12 and 13 June 2018
Judgment
delivered: 21 August 2018
Appearances:
For
Plaintiff: Adv Maritz
Instructed
by: Attorneys: A Wolmarans Inc
For
Defendant: Ms Putuka
Instructed
by: Borman Duma Zitha Attorneys