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
>>
2021
>>
[2021] ZAGPJHC 463
|
|
Mukwevho v Minister of Police (4447/2018) [2021] ZAGPJHC 463 (15 June 2021)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO: 4447/2018
REPORTABLE:
NO
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
REVISED.
17/6/2021
In
the matter between:
MPFARISENI
DAVID
MUKWEVHO
PLAINTIFF
And
MINISTER
OF
POLICE
DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
MAKUME
J
:
[1]
In this matter the Plaintiff claims damages against the Defendant on
the basis that
he was wrongfully arrested and detained for a number
of days in a Correctional Services facility during which time he says
he was
subjected to unpleasant and harsh treatment.
[2]
The Defendant pleaded that save for admitting the arrest it is denied
that such arrest
was wrongful and unlawful it being pleaded that such
arrest was effected pursuant to a warrant of arrest for fraud having
been
authorised by the Magistrate in terms of Section 43 of the
Criminal Procedure Act. The pleadings remained in that state
until
the finalisation of the hearing.
FACTUAL
BACKGROUND
[3]
In order to contextualise the issues in this matter it is necessary
to provide a short
chronology of salient events leading up to this
matter. What follows is a summary of relevant facts that
are either
common cause or not seriously disputed.
[4]
The Plaintiff is a 39year old Television Producer. He is
married and has children.
On the 7
th
October 2017 he
was placed under arrest by captain Mashele a member of the South
African Police who was at that time acting within
the course and
scope of his employment.
[5]
He was detained at the Brixton Police cells until Monday the 9
th
October 2017 when he appeared in court and was remanded in custody
until released on bail on the 17
th
October 2017.
[6]
His arrest and detention happened as a result of a complaint of fraud
laid with the
Commercial Crimes Unit by a certain Mr Dumakude Ndlovu
(Ndlovu) with the police during August 2017.
[7]
Ndlovu is the sole director of a company known as Word of Mouth (Pty)
Ltd. The
Plaintiff was in his employment as a production
manager. The Company Word of Mouth is the producer of one of
South Africa’s
well-known soapies called “Muvhango.”
[8]
In his statement Ndlovu said that the Plaintiff and a certain
Hlongwane defrauded
his company of a total amount of over R3million.
[9]
The Plaintiff had by the time Ndlovu laid the charges left his
employment and had
taken a position with another TV production house
called Tshedza which produces “The River” which is also
one of the
well-known soapies on the South African screens.
[10] On
receipt of the complaint the Public Prosecutor applied to the
Magistrate in terms of
section 43
of the
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of
1977
for the authorising of a warrant to arrest the Plaintiff.
The warrant of arrest was duly authorised by the Magistrate on the
3
rd
October 2017.
[11]
Section 43(3)
of the Act reads that:
“
A
warrant of arrest may be issued on any day and shall remain in force
until it is cancelled by the person who issued it or if such
person
is not available by any person with like authority or until it is
executed.”
[12]
Baqwa J in
Baasden v Minister of Safety and Security
2014 (2) SACR
163
GP at C14J
said that a warrant must exist in real terms as a
document that can be exhibited when necessary.
[13] The
warrant authorising the police to arrest the Plaintiff has been
discovered and forms part
of the record. Captain Mashele on
arresting the Plaintiff acted on the basis of that warrant.
[14] The
Plaintiff appeared in the Magistrate Court on Monday the 9
th
October 2017 and when his attorney applied for his release on bail
the police opposed the application citing reasons that they
had to
first satisfy themselves that Plaintiff is a South African National,
secondly to verify his residential address.
[15]
Bail was refused the Plaintiff was then held in custody at the
Johannesburg Prison until his
next appearance on the 18
th
October 2017 on which day he was released on bail.
[16] On
the 10
th
October 2o17 the story about the arrest of a
manager attached to “Muvhango” appeared in the Sowetan
Newspaper under
the caption “Muvhango losses millions in petty
cash.” The Plaintiff’s name was not mentioned in
the newspaper
report save for the description that the arrested
person is a “former production manager.”
[17]
After his release the Plaintiff went back to work for Tshedza but was
requested to resign because
of the allegation of fraud. Tshedza
Director told him that they would like to protect the reputation of
their company which
was working on the production of “The
River” which soapy was to be aired shortly.
[18] The
Plaintiff left work but was still paid for October and November 2017
the full monthly salary.
[19]
During or about February 2018 charges were withdrawn against him.
On the 28
th
November 2018 he instituted this action
against the Minister of Police and claims compensation under the
following headings:
i)
General
Damages
R 400 000.00
ii)
Future
Medical Expenses
R
24 000.00
iii)
Emotional
Shock
R 400 000.00
iv)
Past
Loss of Income
R 611 322.00
R1 435 322.00
THE
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
[20]
When counsel appeared before me I had become aware that on the 18
th
January 2021 before my brother Francis J an order was granted in the
following terms:
i)
The
Defendant concedes liability in respect of merits 100%.
ii)
The
issue of quantum is postponed sine die.
iii)
Costs
reserved.
[21] I
am quite aware that this is an order granted by a competent court.
I however wanted Counsel
to inform me as to precisely what was
admitted and or conceded by the Defendant. I wanted to be told
what were the facts
placed before my brother Francis which led to the
order.
[22] All
that Defendant’s counsel could tell me was that after
consulting with Captain Mashele
it was decided to concede merits.
I was not told exactly what the consultation entailed Captain Mashele
did not depose to
any affidavit in which he on behalf of the Minister
conceded liability. This aspect remained in my mind throughout the
hearing
as a result I requested counsel to file supplementary heads
dealing with the issue why was it admitted that the arrest was
unlawful
when in fact a warrant of arrest had been issued and
executed by a police officer.
THE
EVIDENCE
[23] The
Plaintiff testified and told the court that after passing matric in
the year 2008 he started
working as a TV Producer till today.
His first employer in 2008 was with the company Word of Mouth which
he left in the year
2011.
[24]
Between 2011 to 2012 he was working for another company Shoe Box and
in June 2014 he re-joined
Word of Mouth and worked on the Muvhango
Production until August 2017.
[25]
Between August 2017 and 1
st
September 2017 he freelanced
for PEU Communication and on the 1
st
September 2017 he
took up employment with Tshedza who was preparing shoots to launch
“The River.”
[26] He
left Tshedza at the end of October 2017 because of the arrest and the
much publicised allegation
of fraud and theft against him. The
Director of Tshedza told him that as soon as he has been cleared of
the allegations he
will be recalled. He was paid in full for
October 2017 and November 2017 even though he did not do any work.
He received
the full salary of R30 000.00 for each month making it
R60 000.00.
[27] He
then freelanced at PEU Communication for 2 weeks in December 2017 and
was paid R40 000.00.
He told the court that between January
2018 to June 2018 he was unemployed and received no income.
This was not correct as
it later was demonstrated in
cross-examination.
[28] In
July 2018 he took up employment with a Durban based company that
produces Uzalo one of the
TV productions. He worked there until
January 2020 from January 2020 until December of that year he worked
for PEU Communication
once more. He resigned because he felt
that he was not given opportunity to advance in management.
[29] He
testified that in August 2017 he left the company Word of Mouth
because a friend invited him
to join Tshedza. His duty was to
help set up for the new production of “The River”.
That production was
to run for one year on 260 episodes. This
means that he would have been in the employment of Tshedza until
November 2018.
[30] In
this industry he would have had an opportunity to renew the
engagement once the Broadcaster
extents the season of the
production. When he was appointed at Tshedza his duties were to
get office space and studios before
hiring crew members and also to
manage the budget. He told the court that if he had not been
arrested he would have stayed
on at Tshedza as their production “The
River is one of the successful soapies which is today still running.
[32]
After the charges had been withdrawn against him he went back to
Tshedza but could not be hired
as Tshedza had in the meantime filled
up the position.
[33]
During 2018 he made a proposal to a company called Murhovhi Financial
Services that operates
in Limpopo to do their branding. If his
proposal had been accepted, he would have earned R300 000.00 in
the name of
his company King Dave Production Pty Ltd. His
proposal was not successful because they had discovered that he has a
pending
fraud case. He called the Sowetan Newspaper to remove
the story about his arrest from their website and was told that they
cannot remove it.
[34] He
testified further that his future in the TV production industry looks
bleak for as long as
his name appears on google about the fraud case
because no company would like to be associated with a person who has
been accused
of fraud. He has applied for positions that were
advertised and got no response. He only gets employed by people
who
know him and who are sympathetic. The arrest and accusation
is an impediment and tends to limit his career development.
He
as a production manager deals with budgets but now no one entrusts
him with budgets since his arrest.
[35] The
reason he decided to resign at PEU Communication during January 2021
is because he realised
that they don’t trust him with managing
finance and it is all because of this fraud case. He agreed
that he was well
all paid and did not resign because of the money he
was getting there. He resigned because he wants to grow and
that situation
was inhibiting him to grow. He wants to grow
because he is looking forward to having his own production company.
[36] He
testified further that when he worked for PEU during 2012 the
situation was different they
trusted him with budget management.
Since February 2021 he has been sending his CV’s to various
companies and has not
received any offer.
[37] He
agrees that during December 2017 he was paid R40 000.00 by PEU
Communication for freelance
work. However, he maintained that
between January 2018 to June 2018 he was unemployed.
[38] He
concluded his evidence in chief by saying that it was the first time
for him to be arrested
and to have spent time in a prison.
Under cross-examination he responded that the amount of R311 322.00
that is stated in
paragraph 9.4 of the Particulars of Claim is what
the actuary had determined as possible profit for the Murhovhi
Financial Services
proposal.
[39] He
testified further that with Tshedza he concluded a verbal agreement.
The only time he
had a written contract was when he worked for PEU
from January 2020 to January 2021. The R611 322.00 that he is
claiming
as past loss of income is made up as follows:
R300 000.00 being loss of profit
for the Murhovhi project and R311 322.00 being loss of earning
from Tshedza which should
actually be R360 000.00.
[40] He
conceded that according to his bank statement he was paid R34 000.00
on the 31
st
March 2018 by Tshedza for doing work on “The
River”. Again on the 9
th
April 2018. He
explained that the R12 000.00 was for travelling expenses for
the job that he did for Tshedza in Giyane.
[41] He
also conceded that on the 30
th
April 2018 he was paid
R20250.00 by PEU Communication for freelance work that he did for
them. He maintains that freelance
is not employment it is part
time and is not fixed employment.
[42] He
further conceded that his bank statement indicate that for September
he received R70 000.00
and that between the 25
th
October 2017 and 25
th
November 2017 he received income of
R63 000.00 and that between November 2017 to December 2017 his
income was R100 700.00
and for the month ending January 2018 his
income was R7 682.30, January 2018 to February 2018 he received
R10 000.00 for the
period March 2018 to April 2018 he received
R57 905.00 and for the period 25 April 2018 to 25 May 2018 he
received R87250.00 and
lastly for the period 25 May 2018 to 25 June
2018 to he received R21 290.00.
[43] He
indicated that some of the money that he received in his account was
from his wife’s
account and part of it was part time income as
a freelancer which amount he agrees should be deducted from the R360
000.00 loss
had he been working at Tshedza.
[44] The
amount of R7687-30 that he received on the 9
th
January
2018 was from LMK it was a loan from a friend of his and not income.
The amount of R43 601.88 that he received during
January 2018 not all
of it is income because R4 500 was a refund from medical aid and only
R40 000 was payment from PEU Communications.
He confirms
that he received R10 425.00 from PEU again in February 2018.
[45]
During April 2018 he was paid R15 600.00 by Tshedza Communications
and R20 250.00 by PEU Communications.
[46] In
the final outcome when it was put to the Plaintiff that he did not
suffer any loss of income
he responded that he had a shortfall of
income. He did not receive the monthly R60 000.00
that he would
have received at Tshedaza. This therefore means
he did receive income but not he full income. As a result, he
had to
now and then get money from his wife and also lend from
friends in order to meet his monthly debit orders.
[47] He
testified further that the amount of R311322 stated in the
Particulars of Claim is an estimate
and not actual loss.
[48] In
answering question from the court he said that he resigned from PEU
in January 2021 because
he felt that the owner of the business did
not trust him with money anymore and that did not make him happy.
He did not discuss
that with the owner and simply handed in a
resignation.
[49]
When Captain Mashele arrested him he did not handcuff him however
when he appeared in court on
Monday the 9
th
October2017 he
was in leg chains. He was only released on bail on the 17
th
October 2017.
[50] The
case against him was withdrawn because he was told that the people
who laid charges against
him were not cooperating with the
prosecution. When he resigned from PEU his monthly salary was
R70 000.00 per month.
[51]
When he filed his tax returns he did not include the money that he
received as a freelancer because
he got bad advice. He conceded
that money that he received as a freelancer is in fact income.
[52] Mr
P Makwarela testified on behalf of the Plaintiff. He is a
Director at Tshedza and confirmed
that during September 2017 he
invited the Plaintiff to join Tshedza as they needed an experienced
production manager to help them
set up shoots for “The River.”
He cannot recall if a written contract was signed but recalls that
the Plaintiff was
to be paid between R50 000.00 to R60 000.00
per month.
[53]
After the Plaintiff had been arrested and the story appeared in the
media they had to release
him as they did not want to be associated
with a person who is accused of fraud. The Plaintiff was paid
the full salary for
the month of October and November 2017.
Thereafter they engaged him now and then between December and January
2018 as a freelancer
and paid him as indicated in the Plaintiff’s
bank statements.
[54] The
evidence of Miss Prudence Ngoako and that of Lance Marais both
Industrial Psychology practitioners
can be summarised in terms of
their joint minutes filed on the 23
rd
April 2021.
[55] In
their joint minutes the two expert witnesses confirm that the purpose
of their examination
was to present professional opinion with regard
to pre and post morbid career prospects as well as past and
future earnings
in respect of the Plaintiff.
[56]
They agree that pre his arrest the Plaintiff kept a stable type of
employment on a contract basis
and would have continued to do so
until retirement. At Tshedza he earned R60 000.00 per
month.
[57] The
witnesses agree that the Plaintiff had commenced discussions with
Murovhi Financial Services
to do their branding however this was an
anticipated business on the table and no intention to conclude a
branding services agreement
with Murovhi.
[58] In
respect of his position post his arrest and release the witnesses
note that his contract albeit
verbal was terminated because of the
publicity about the cause of his arrest.
[59]
They disagree on the period that the Plaintiff remained unemployed
since he left Tshedza in November
2017. Ms Ngoako says the
Plaintiff remained unemployed for a period of nine months whilst Mr
Marais says it was shorter than
that. He says that Plaintiff
secured employment during May of 2018 which will then result in a
period of five months.
[60]
This evidence is contradicted by the Plaintiff himself who conceded
that he did remunerative
work for other companies including the very
Tshedza between December 2017 till June 2018 when he decided to sign
up for a contract
with a Durban based TV Production Company.
[61]
Whilst Ms Ngoako notes that the Plaintiff has endured emotional and
financial harm as a result
of the incident which has impacted
negatively on his reputation and personal brand Mr Marais notes that
he is most likely to experience
long term emotional difficulties due
to the criminal case.
[62] The
two experts interestingly note that despite the incident the
Plaintiff was still able to
secure employment for two and a half
years after the incident and he should still be able to continue
working and earning income
as indicated.
[63] In
conclusion Ms Ngoako opines that for as long as the Plaintiff’s
name is still associated
with the alleged fraud case this will impact
negatively on his ability to secure employment in the future.
[64] I
am finding it difficult to reconcile these findings with the direct
evidence of the Plaintiff
himself who has been in remunerative
employment with the same employer and others in the industry despite
the incident. The
Plaintiff resigned during January 2021 from a
contract that was paying him R70 000.00 per month. He does
not say that
he resigned because of the salary but because he thinks
that the employer does not trust him by not allowing him to manage
budget.
He did not call that employer to corroborate his
assumption. Quite to the contrary the Plaintiff says that he
wants to start
his own production company.
[65] The
Clinical Psychologists also filed a joint report in terms of which
the parties have reached
agreement regarding the psychotherapy
intervention required by the Plaintiff to treat him for the
psychological effects of the
unlawful arrest and detention. It
has been agreed that the Plaintiff will have to attend fifteen (15)
sessions at the cost
of R1200.00 per session which translates to an
amount of R18 000.00 (Eighteen Thousand Rand).
[66] The
Plaintiff closed his case and the Defendant only presented evidence
by Mr Lance Stanley Marais
the Industrial Psychologist and then
closed its case after cross-examination.
[67]
Besides what I have analysed in the joint minutes between Mr Marais
and Ms Ngoako the further
evidence by Mr Marais is to the effect that
whilst he agrees that the Plaintiff suffered loss the difficulty he
has is how to quantify
it.
[68]
This in my view just about summarises the problem in view of the fact
that the Plaintiff has
been receiving income on a part time basis
between December 2017 and May 2018 whereafter he signed long term
engagement renewable
on a yearly basis depending as he says whether
the broadcaster extends production of a particular soapie or
documentary.
[69] Mr
Marais further testified that in his discussion with the people at
Murovhi Financial Services
he was told that the company had no
intention of changing their current branding. This corroborates
the joint minutes by
Marais and Ngoako to the effect that Plaintiff
and Murovhi only engaged in discussion and never concluded any deal.
[70] Mr
Lance also testified that freelancing is a form of income generating
contract.
WAS
THE ARREST LAWFUL
[71]
Paragraph 4 of Standing Order (GG) 341 of the South African Police
reminds police officers that
the purpose of an arrest is not to
punish the person concerned.
[72] I
am mindful of the fact that the Defendant conceded that the arrest
was unlawful hence an order
was granted by my brother Francis J in
favour of the Plaintiff. Under normal circumstances this issue
becomes res judicata.
I have decided to revisit that issue
purely on the basis of procedure. It was held in
Airports Company
of South Africa v Big Five Duty Free (Pty) Ltd and Others
2019 (5) SA
1
CC at paragraph 3
that a court must give approval to a
settlement agreement. This was the only reason why I directed
the parties to file supplementary
heads in view of the fact that the
arrest had been authorised by a magistrate in terms of
Section 43
of
the
Criminal Procedure Act.
>
[73] In
the unreported case of
Botes v Minister of Police and Another case
number 9778/13 GP dated 25 April 2018
Sello AJ reminded us that
arrest constitutes one of the most drastic infringements of the
rights of an individual and calls for
restraint where that is
feasible.
[74] It is
trite law that even where a warrant for the arrest of a suspect has
been lawfully obtained in
terms of
Section 43
this in itself does not
necessarily justify an arrest to secure attendance of the suspect in
court. In
Brown and Another v Director of Public Prosecution
& Others
2009 (1) SACR 218
Fourie J reaffirmed that an arrest
constituted such a drastic invasion of personal liberty that it still
had to be justifiable
according to the demands of the Bill of
Rights. A change in the flight risk of a suspect might however
justify his arrest
to secure attendance in court.
[75] The
Plaintiff is a South African citizen. He after receiving a call
went personally to
the Police Station to find out the reason why he
was called. This was on a Saturday. He went there in the
company of
his expectant wife which showed that he did not expect to
be detained. The Captain failed to exercise his discretion and
opted to lock him up when he could have simply issued him with a
notice to appear in court on the next court appearance. There
was no justification to have him detained on Saturday and Sunday his
arrest was accordingly unlawful.
[76]
When the Plaintiff appeared in court on Monday despite submission and
representation from his
attorney the Police opposed bail on the basis
that they still wanted to confirm if the Plaintiff was a South
African as well as
to confirm his residential address. The
Police laid no basis for this stance. The fact that they had
left a message
at his house and he responded, should have indicated
to the police that he does have a place of permanent residence, and
is not
a flight risk.
[77]
Secondly the Plaintiff is known to the complainant they have been
working together for a long
time. He could be a source of
information to the police that he is a South African citizen and not
a flight risk.
[78] I
am accordingly satisfied that the arrest and detention of the
Plaintiff for the period 7
th
October 2017 to 17
th
October 2017 was unlawful.
GENERAL
DAMAGES
[79] The
Plaintiff is claiming an amount of R400 000.00 (Four Hundred
Thousand Rand) which he
says is for emotional shock. In my view
this is an unnecessary splitting of issues. General damages in
this instance
will include emotional shock, discomfort, injured
feelings, and deprivation of personal liberty.
[80]
What is in issue before me now is to determine what amount is
appropriate to compensate the Plaintiff
for the wrongful arrest and
detention.
[81] It
is common cause that the arrest of the Plaintiff in the presence of
his wife was most unceremonious
and hurtful. The arrest was
given publicity in the Sowetan Newspaper which is widely read in the
Gauteng area. Even
though he was not mentioned by name people
who know him were able to immediately connect him with the article in
the Sowetan Newspaper.
[82] The
Plaintiff did not in his evidence describe the conditions of the cell
in which he was detained
at Brixton police station. He told the
court that it was the first time that he had been arrested. He also
did not tell the
court the conditions under which he was held at the
Correctional services save to say that he found himself in the
presence of
strangers. It is also correct that when he was taken to
court on the Monday his legs were chained. These I believe must
have
saddened him that it happened in the presence of his attorney as
well as his parents. I can think of no worse humiliation
than
what happened to the plaintiff on that day.
[83] The
plaintiff was deprived of his liberty for a period of ten (10) days
on the evidence before
me during his detention he suffered no further
degradation beyond that inherent in being arrested and detained.
I have no
doubt that the experience was traumatic and caused him
great distress. Both clinical Psychologist in their joint
report attest
to this and have recommended sessions of therapy.
[84]
Nugent JA in the matter of
Minister of Safety and Security vs
Seymour
2006 (6) SA 320
at paragraph 17
said the following:
“
The assessment of awards for
general damages with reference to awards made in previous cases is
fraught with difficulty. The
facts of a particular case need to
be looked at as a whole and a few cases are directly comparable.
They are useful guides
to what other courts have considered to be
appropriate but they have no higher value than that.”
[85] The
Plaintiff in his evidence says it is not about money all that he
wants is that justice must
be done.
[86]
Having taken all the circumstances into consideration I have come to
the conclusion that an appropriate
sum for general damages is the
amount of R500 000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Rand).
PAST
LOSS OF INCOME
[87] The
claim in respect of the Murovhi Branding business has not been proved
and is accordingly
disallowed.
[88] As
regards past loss of earnings between December 2017 and June 2018 the
Plaintiff has conceded
that he freelanced and received income as
indicated in his bank account. He agrees that the difference
between what he earned
whilst freelancing and what he would have
earned had he been with the company Tshedza is shortfall and he is
entitled to receive
that.
[89] It
is common cause that had he not been arrested he would for the period
December 2017 to May
2018 have received an amount of R360 000.00
which is made up of R60 000.00 per month for six months. He
only received the
following amounts:
R40 500.00 from PEU Solution on
14 December 2017
R40 500.00 from PEU
Solution on 12 February 2018
R10 125.00 from PEU
Solution on 06 March 2018
R 40 500.00 from PEU
Solution on 28 March 2018
R 3 400.00 from The
River on 31 March 2018
R 12 000.00 from The
River on 09 April 2018
R 15 600.00 from The
River on 26 April 2018
R 20 250.00 from PEU
Solution on 30 April 2018
R 24 000.00 from The
River on 07 May 2018
R
30 375.00
from PEU Solution on 28
Mary 2018
Total
R237 250.00
Total
[90] The
amount of R237 250.00 must be deducted from the R360 000.00 which
leaves an amount of R122
759.00 which represents his loss or
shortfall as he the Plaintiff puts it.
THE
FUTURE LOSS OF EARNINGS
[91] The
Plaintiff has succeeded to be employed after his release albeit as he
says by people who
knows him. He resigned his recent employment
at PEU because he wants to start his own production company
ultimately and believes
that his position at PEU stifles his growth.
I am not persuaded that by not receiving responses from prospective
employers
to whom he had sent CVs is because of the arrest incident.
It could be for economic or other facts related to the industry.
He is an experienced TV production manager and was able to be
employed by a Durban Company that paid him much more than what he
was
getting at Tshedza. His claim for future loss of earnings must
fail.
[92] In
the result judgment is granted in favour of the Plaintiff and the
Defendant is ordered to
pay the Plaintiff the following amounts:
i)
R500 000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Rand for general damages)
R18 000.00 (Eighteen Thousand Rand
being for Psychological Therapy sessions)
R122 750.00
(Past Loss of Earning)
Total
R640 750.00
Total
ii)
The Defendant is further
ordered to pay the Plaintiff’s taxed costs which costs shall
include the costs of Counsel and all
the experts.
DATED
at JOHANNESBURG this the 17 day of June 2021.
M
A MAKUME
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
DATE
: 03 MAY
2021
DATE
OF JUDGMENT
: 15 JUNE
2021
FOR
PLAINTIFF
:
ADV MA
TSHIVHASE
INSTRUCTED
BY
: MAMATHUNTSHA
INCORPORATED
FOR
DEFENDANT
:
ADV K.
MTHETHWA
INSTRUCTED
BY
:
OFFICE OF
THE STATE ATTORNEYS