About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
>>
2011
>>
[2011] ZAECPEHC 36
|
|
Potgieter v Rangasamy and Another (1261/2008) [2011] ZAECPEHC 36 (16 August 2011)
REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, PORT
ELIZABETH
Case no: 1261/2008
Date Heard: 16/02/2011
Date Delivered: 16/08/2011
In the matter between:
MARIE POTGIETER
........................................................
PLAINTIFF
Versus
DERUSHA RANGASAMY
…......................................
1
ST
DEFENDANT
FNQ BUS SERVICES CC
…......................................
2
ND
DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
SANDI J:
[1] At about 4h25 on 26 June 2005
the plaintiff, then 40 years old, was a passenger on a bus with
registration letters and number
CYD 855 EC which was involved in an
accident. Arising from that accident, the plaintiff claims damages
from the first and second
defendants.
[2] The bus was carrying thirty-nine
passengers of whom thirty were Eastern Cape under-nineteen netball
players selected from various
schools. The rest of the passengers,
including the plaintiff, were teachers who were going to perform
certain official duties at
a tournament which was going to be held at
Potchefstroom. The plaintiff was the coach of the netball players.
[3] The merits and costs of the
action were settled on 15 October 2009. Subsequent thereto the Road
Accident Fund paid the plaintiff
her statutory damages amounting to
R25 000-00. The plaintiff is now claiming the rest of her damages
from the owner of the bus
and the person who operated it. They are
cited in this action as the first and second defendants,
respectively.
[4] The plaintiff claims the
following damages:
1. Future Medical Expenses
R152 700.00
2. General Damages
R300 000.00
TOTAL
R452 700.00
[5] I am now called upon to
determine the quantum of plaintiff’s damages.
[6] The plaintiff testified that
from the moment the bus left Port Elizabeth she resolved to keep
awake until the bus reached its
destination. She made it her task to
watch the bus driver not to fall asleep behind the wheel. She was
concerned about the safety
of the passengers on the bus and desired
that they enjoyed a safe journey to Potchefstroom. For that purpose
she lay on the aisle
of the bus. Her head was facing to the front of
the bus in such a position that she was able to observe the bus
driver all the
times.
[7] However, in the course of the
journey, she fell asleep. She was woken from sleep by one of the
students who cried out to her
that the driver had fallen asleep.
[8] At about that time she was flung
out of the windscreen window, the glass of which had been shattered.
She landed on the ground
not far from the bus. At that stage the
people in the bus, particularly the netball players were screaming
and were hysterical.
[9] As a result of the accident
three children died. One of them had her brain oozing out of her nose
and ears.
[10] Because of shock the plaintiff
ran away from the scene. However, shortly thereafter she returned to
the bus. As she returned
to the bus she noticed a girl who was
seriously injured. Her arm was trapped in some object. She was in
pain and was hysterical.
She begged the plaintiff to pray for her.
Later, that girl lost her arm.
[11] The plaintiff telephoned the
parents of the three deceased girls to break the tragic news of their
death to them. The children
who had suffered injuries were
transported to various hospitals in Bloemfontein. The plaintiff
testified that she insisted that
the deceased children be transported
from the accident scene by means of ambulances. One of the bodies of
the deceased girls was
transported to the mortuary in the ambulance
in which the plaintiff travelled to hospital. It was her desire that
the dead bodies
be handled in a decent manner.
[12] When they reached the hospital
the plaintiff made it a point that the children were treated first,
and she last.
[13] She testified that at the scene
of the accident she noticed that both her knees were grazed, the
right hand was swollen and
her face had some grazes. She also became
aware that her neck was stiff. She could not turn it fully to the
right. As far as she
could recall she was not given any medication at
the hospital except that she was supplied with a neck brace. No
x-rays of her
neck and spine were taken by the doctor and she was not
hospitalised.
[14] She testified that she suffered
severe emotional shock and trauma arising from witnessing the
hysterical, injured and deceased
children. She said there was chaos
at the scene and she did her best to manage it.
[15] She did not want to leave the
children in Bloemfontein alone. She remained there and returned home
a few days after the accident.
[16] While in Bloemfontein she
visited the mortuary to see the bodies of the deceased children. They
were in the same condition
they were in when they were being
transported from the scene of the accident. Their bodies were dirty
and their clothes dishevelled.
She became distraught that her request
that they be washed before their parents arrived to identify them was
turned down by the
authorities at the mortuary.
[17] After returning home she
visited the parents of the deceased children and attended their
memorial services. Some parents laid
the blame on her for the
horrific accident.
[18] The plaintiff sustained the
following injuries: a soft tissue injury to the neck; an injury to
the right hand; a fracture of
the tip of the stiloid process of the
ulna; grazes to both knees and bruises and abrasions to her face.
[19] According to her it took about
six months for the hand injury to heal. To this day the pain in the
neck injury persists. Movement
of the head to the right side has been
reduced by fifty percent (50%). This has been confirmed by expert
opinion.
[20] She says that she suffered the
following psychological effects. She no longer wants to talk about
the incident and becomes
tearful when doing so, something which was
not in her nature. She feels guilty about leaving some of the
children in Bloemfontein;
the parents of some of the children blamed
her for the accident; at present she does not want to ride a bus or
drive a school combi.
For a few years after the accident she did not
coach netball. Her evidence is that she requires therapy.
[21] The plaintiff experiences pain
and discomfort. She experiences headaches on a daily basis and her
neck becomes painful. She
finds it difficult to reverse a vehicle.
She cannot sit for long hours and has to stand up and move in order
to ameliorate the
pain associated therewith. She can no longer run
and experiences pain and stiffness in her lower back. Ascending and
descending
stairs is a difficult task. She cannot bend and pick up
heavy objects. She cannot even pick up her nephew. Generally, she
experiences
difficulty in performing certain household chores.
[22] The next witness for the
plaintiff was Mark Eaton, a psychologist. Mr Eaton consulted with the
plaintiff on 29 November 2010.
The evidence of Mr Eaton was given
against the background that since the accident the plaintiff has
never received any treatment
for the trauma she experienced. However,
Mr Eaton’s opinion was that the plaintiff has not dealt with
the effects of the
post-traumatic stress syndrome and that she at
present requires psychotherapy which, though it will not erase her
experiences of
the day of the accident, will assist her a great deal
in getting closure in this matter. Mr Eaton also gave the opinion
that the
plaintiff suffers from an acute stress disorder which she
compensates by engaging in unhealthy activities like smoking and
using
alcohol. Mr Eaton was satisfied that the plaintiff still
suffers a significant amount of trauma. She has a chronic post-stress
disorder, with mild residual symptoms. According to Mr Eaton the
major depressive disorder is currently asymptomatic.
[23] According to Mr Eaton the
plaintiff has a travel phobia and has been severely psychologically
affected by the accident. To
recount the bus incident gives the
plaintiff a headache and creates tension. On occasions she cried
during the consultations he
had with her when she was recounting the
bus accident. She does not want to talk about the incident and
becomes emotional when
she speaks about it. In his opinion the
plaintiff’s condition is permanent and that she needs therapy
to get over it. He
also says that eversince the accident the
plaintiff has had only one panic attack. He opined that the plaintiff
will need twelve
(12) sessions of therapy at R650-00 per hour which,
in total, amounts to R7 800-00.
[24] Dr Olivier, the orthopaedic
surgeon who examined the plaintiff on the 29 September 2010, was
surprised that the doctor at Bloemfontein,
who diagnosed her as
having suffered a minor neck injury, did not take x-rays of the neck
and spine. He said that the normal procedure
for the treatment of a
patient who has suffered a neck injury would have been to supply her
with a brace; take x-ray photographs
of the neck and spine on the
first day. The second day, another set of x-ray photographs would
have been taken. He explained that
the muscle spasm could have
prevented x-rays from detecting the injury to the neck. The next day
the muscle spasm would have settled
down and a second set of x-ray
photographs would have been taken which could have assisted in
detecting whether or not an injury
to the neck had occurred.
Regrettably the plaintiff was not subjected to this procedure.
[25] Dr Olivier’s evidence was
that the plaintiff sustained a soft tissue injury of her neck; a soft
tissue injury of her
right hand with a fracture of the tip of the
stiloid process of the ulna; bruises and abrasions of both knees and
bruises and abrasions
of her face.
[26] His opinion was that the
plaintiff experiences periodic occipital headaches accompanied by the
stiffness of the neck. The movement
of her neck has decreased and the
rotation and lateral flexion to the right has been limited by fifty
percent. She cannot flex
her neck fully.
[27] His clinical examination
established that the plaintiff has degenerative changes present at
the level C3 to C4 of the spinal
column with anterior and posterior
osteophytes. He explained that once the plaintiff sustained the
injury to the C3 to C4 levels,
which causes instability to the
cervical vertebra, the body naturally intervenes by producing
osteophytes to compensate for the
instability in the cervical
vertebra. He says that an osteophyte is a bone formation produced by
the body when an injury or some
instability occurs to a disc.
[28] His view was that the plaintiff
will require conservative treatment. He was satisfied that the
plaintiff’s neck injury
was caused by the accident. He stated
that apart from the conservative treatment the probability is that
the plaintiff will require
an operation ten to fifteen years from now
in order to remove the osteophytes. The plaintiff’s condition
will deteriorate
as she gets older. He was satisfied that the
plaintiff’s claims were valid and that the plaintiff told him
the truth. When
asked whether it was possible that the plaintiff
could have suffered the neck injury before the accident, as a result
of,
inter alia,
playing sport, degeneration of the spine and
some accident which occurred while the plaintiff was a student in
1988, Dr Olivier
stated that during his consultation with the
plaintiff, the plaintiff never told him that she sustained the injury
as a result
of the incidents referred to by defence counsel.
[29] In any event, I should add that
there was no evidence to support these suggestions. The plaintiff’s
evidence was that
prior to the accident she was a fit and healthy
person and the accident she experienced in 1988 whilst she was a
student was a
minor one and that she only sustained a cut to her eye.
[30] Dr Olivier was satisfied in his
opinion that the plaintiff’s neck problems commenced after the
accident. In answer to
a question put to him by defence counsel he
stated that in any bus accident neck injuries are likely to happen.
He said that it
does not matter whether the bus rolled or collided
with something.
[31] In my view, it is highly
unlikely that the plaintiff sustained the injury to her neck prior to
the accident. She was playing
sport at the time of the accident and
was also a coach of the netball team up until at least the date of
the accident. She never
complained of neck injuries before. To
suggest that the neck injury could have been caused prior to the
accident is purely speculative
on the part of the defendants.
[32] Having said so, I now turn to
the question of damages. Mr
Schubart SC,
for the plaintiff,
submitted that in respect of the emotional shock and trauma I should
award general damages in an amount of about
R75 000-00 and R135
000-00 in respect of the neck, knee, and hand injuries.
[33] Mr
Schubart
submitted
that future medical expenses should be awarded on the basis of the
expert opinion, as follows:
Psychotherapy R 7 800-00
Consultations R 10 000-00
Physiotherapy R 1 500-00
Provision for anti-inflammatories R
5 800-00
Discetomy
R 120 000-00
Total
R 145 100-00
[34] Mr
Kriel
, for the
defendants, accepted the figures suggested by Mr
Schubart
in
respect of psychotherapy, consultations, physiotherapy and
anti-inflammatories. However, Mr
Kriel
submitted that I should
not allow the plaintiff an amount of R120 000-00 in respect of the
future operation for the removal of the
osteophytes. He submitted
that the evidence of Dr Olivier was uncertain as to whether or not
the plaintiff will require the removal
of the discetomy ten to
fifteen years from now. According to Mr
Kriel
, the evidence of
Dr Olivier indicates that there is a fifty percent chance that the
plaintiff may or may not need the operation.
He submitted that in the
event that the plaintiff will not require the operation in the future
the defendants will suffer injustice.
[35] Dr Olivier’s evidence was
very clear in this regard. His opinion was that the probabilities are
that the plaintiff will
require the operation in the future. In
support of this opinion he stated that already, at age 46, the
plaintiff is experiencing
degenerative changes of the spinal column.
These changes will progress to the stage when an operation will
become necessary.
[36] During argument Mr
Kriel
submitted that the plaintiff was not entitled to damages for
emotional trauma for the reason that she is not a parent or a
relative
of the children involved in the accident. The question he
posed was: what of the other teachers and children who suffered the
same
fate as the plaintiff? The answer to that submission is that I
am here dealing with the facts of the present matter and I am unable
to speculate regarding the claims or potential claims of the other
passengers on the bus.
[37] In any event the facts of the
matter of
Road Accident Fund v Sauls
2002 (2) SA 55
SCA are
relevant to this matter. In that matter the plaintiff’s fiancé
was struck by a vehicle in her presence. As
a result of the accident
the plaintiff experienced shock and was confused. Later she was
diagnosed with a chronic post-traumatic
stress disorder which was
unlikely to improve.
[38] In
Sauls (supra)
Olivier
JA said,
inter alia
, the following at paragraph 17 of the
judgment:
“
Over
the years various limitations to claims of the sort now under
consideration have been considered, here and abroad. They have
been
considered in the South African cases mentioned above and do not need
repetition. I can find no general, 'public policy’
limitation
to the claim of a plaintiff, other than a correct and careful
application of the well-known requirements of delictual
liability and
of the
onus
of
proof. It is not justifiable to limit the sort of claim now under
consideration, as has been offered as one solution, to a defined
relationship between the primary and secondary victims, such as
parent and child, husband and wife, etc.Of course, in determining
limitations a court will take into consideration
the
relationship between the primary and secondary victims. The question
is one of legal policy, reasonableness, fairness and justice,
ie was
the relationship between the primary and secondary victims such that
the claim should be allowed, taking all the facts into
consideration.
Further Oliver JA referred, with
approval, to the judgment of
Alcock and Others v Chief Constable
of South Yorkshire Police
[1992] 1 AC 311
(HL) (at 397C - F
([1991]
4 All ER 907
at 914
d
–
g)
at 63
:
“
As
regards the class of persons to whom a duty may be owed to take
reasonable care to avoid inflicting psychiatric illness through
nervous shock sustained by reason of physical injury or peril to
another, I think it sufficient that reasonable foreseeability
should
be the guide. I would not seek to limit the class by reference to
particular relationships such as husband and wife or parent
and
child. The kinds of relationship which may involve close ties of love
and affection are numerous, and it is the existence of
such ties
which leads to mental disturbance when the loved one suffers a
catastrophe. They may be present in family relationships
or those of
close friendship, and may be stronger in the case of engaged couples
than in that of persons who have been married
to each other for many
years. It is common knowledge that such ties exist, and reasonably
foreseeable that those bound by them
may in certain circumstances be
at real risk of psychiatric illness if the loved one is injured or
put in peril. The closeness
of the tie would, however, require to be
proved by a plaintiff, though no doubt being capable of being
presumed in appropriate
cases. The case of a bystander unconnected
with the victims of an accident is difficult. Psychiatric injury to
him would not ordinarily,
in my view, be within the range of
reasonable foreseeability, but could not perhaps be entirely excluded
from it if the circumstances
of a catastrophe occurring very close to
him were particularly horrific.”
[39] In any event, Mr
Kriel
abandoned the argument that the nature of the relationship
between the plaintiff and the children is not such as to entitle her
to delictual damages. Though Mr
Kriel
later abandoned this
argument, I have decided to deal with it in paragraphs 38 and 39
above because I gained the impression that
he had not considered the
dictum of Olivier JA in the
Sauls
matter referred to above. In
the alternative, Mr
Kriel
submitted that the plaintiff’s
quantum of damages should be assessed at a scale lower than that
which would have been applicable
to the parents and relatives of the
children involved in the accident.
[40] In my view the quantum of the
plaintiff’s damages for emotional shock and trauma are to be
assessed in accordance with
the degree of trauma suffered by her. I
approach the matter on that basis.
[41] In determining the plaintiff’s
general damages I propose to do so under the following headings:
Emotional shock and trauma, and
The neck, knees, hand and facial
injuries.
[42] In doing so, I have sought
guidance from the judgments referred to hereunder.
[43] In
Majiet v Santam Limited
1997 (4K3) QOD (1) (K); Corbett and Honey Volume 4, K3 – 1,
the plaintiff was awarded general damages in the sum of R35 000-00
for a major depressive disorder. The present day value of such an
award is R79 000-00. The plaintiff came upon the body of her
nine (9)
year old child lying in the road shortly after the child had been
struck down by a motor vehicle. The plaintiff suffered
a period of
amnesia. She was told that her child had called out “mammie”
before she died. The plaintiff had touched
the body of the child. She
became hysterical and collapsed on one or two occasions. As a result
of her child’s death her
behaviour changed dramatically.
[44] The judgment records
inter
alia
the following: “She failed to react to people when
they spoke to her and for months refused food, relying instead on
tablets.
She lost weight and became thin and refused to leave the
home even to visit family members. Her sleeplessness lead to he being
awake and walking around the house for many hours during the nights
and early mornings.”
[45] In
Road Accident Fund v Ruth
FS Draghoender
case no. 1477/03; Corbett and Honey Volume 5, K3 –
16, plaintiff’s eight (8) year old son was killed in a motor
collision
in front of the family home. As a result of the accident
the plaintiff suffered severe emotional shock and trauma which
rendered
her permanently disabled to earn an income. In respect of
general damages for emotional shock and trauma she was awarded R80
000-00
damages (the present value of which is now R152 000-00).
[46] In
De Barros v Road Accident
Fund,
2001 (5C4) QOD 13 (C), the plaintiff a twenty five (25)
year old rigger was the driver of a motor vehicle when it was struck
by
another vehicle. He sustained blunt trauma to his lower lumber
spine. As a result thereof he experienced persistent pain which
prevented him from engaging in heavy manual tasks. The persistent
pain resulted in him suffering from depression. As a result of
his
disabilities he stopped working. He was awarded general damages of
R85 000-00 (the value of which is now R153 000).
[47] In
Daniels v Road Accident
Fund;
Corbett and Honey, Volume 5 at C3 – 1, the plaintiff
was injured in a motor vehicle accident as a result of which he
sustained
a mild whiplash injury. Her chest was bruised with
tenderness in the midline. Her left hip was painful. Initially she
was treated
with analgesics and anti-inflamatories. Thereafter she
experienced discomfort in her neck. Her doctor’s assessment of
the
discomfort was that she suffered from a whiplash syndrome. She
was subsequently boarded from work. She experienced pain in her
shoulder and neck which was exacerbated by the increase in anxiety
levels. She had a diminished range of movement of her neck, of
flexion and extension, rotation and lateral flexion. She was
diagnosed to have suffered severe psychological disorder which had
become chronic. On two occasions, she attempted to commit suicide as
a result of her mood state, she experienced episodes of panic
attacks
and agoraphobia. She was on anti-depressant medication and was
receiving psycho-therapy. In respect of general damages
for the
whiplash injury and the psychological sequelae thereof she was
awarded general damages of R80 000-00 (the value of which
is now R152
000-00).
[48] In
Griffiths v Mutual and
Federal Insurance Company Limited;
Corbett and Honey, Volume 4 at
C3 – 33, the plaintiff was awarded damages of R45 000-00. Her
vehicle was struck by another
vehicle from behind as a result of
which she sustained a whiplash injury. For general damages the
plaintiff was awarded R45 000-00
(the value of which is now R140
000-00).
[49] In
Van Vuuren v Road
Accident Fund,
2009 JDR 0572 (GSJ), the plaintiff, a 61-year-old
person, suffered a whiplash injury in her neck. Initially, the pain
was acute
for 2 to 3 days. Thereafter the neck pain became severe and
constant. It radiated into her back, shoulders and down to her arms
and fingers. According to medical evidence the pain was chronic. She
lost strength in her hands and it was difficult for her to
perform
simple tasks like holding a cup or punch in the pin number to her
prepaid electricity meter. Her treatment consisted of
medication,
x-rays and physiotherapy. The rotation of her neck was limited. For
general damages, she was awarded R120 000-00 (the
current value of
which is R133 000-00).
[50] In
Jacobs v
Padongelukkefonds,
2003 (3) (5C3) QOD 131 (T), a chattered
accountant suffered a whiplash injury of the neck which gave rise to
a post-traumatic stress
syndrome causing a 5% loss of work capacity.
Pain in the neck and back was chronic and continuous. She experienced
regular headaches.
These symptoms were becoming gradually worse and
she had 40% - 45% chance that she would remain symptomatic for many
years. There
was 5% - 10% chance that cervical surgery would become
necessary. General damages of R180 000-00 were awarded by the Court.
The
current value of the damages is R280 000-00.
[51] In
Van Der Merwe v Minister
Van Veligheid en Sekuriteit en ’n Ander,
2010 (6K2) QOD 1
(NCK), general damages of R25 000-00 were awarded to plaintiff who
suffered emotional trauma as a result of an
unlawful arrest and
detention. The plaintiff was detained for two and a half hours. As a
result thereof he suffered severe trauma
and had to undergo
psychological and psychiatric treatment and was awarded general
damages of R25 000-00 (the current value of
which is R25 000-00).
[52] In
Allie v The Road Accident
Fund,
2002 JDR 0912 (C), the plaintiff was awarded general
damages of R80 000-00 (the current value of which is R132 000-00) as
a result
of emotional shock and trauma suffered after having observed
his wife plunged through the windscreen of the car he was driving,
caused by a vehicle which collided into his vehicle. He witnessed his
wife bleed to death at the scene of the collision. He lost
his wife
and his unborn child. General damages of R80 000-00 (the current
value of which is 132 000-00) was awarded to him in respect
of
emotional shock and trauma. He required psychotherapy and medication.
Because he did not have psychotherapeutic treatment at
an earlier
stage the Court held that the plaintiff had a duty to mitigate his
general damages and awarded him the damages referred
to above.
[53] In
Kritzinger v Road
Accident Fund,
2009 JDR 0275 (ECP), the first plaintiff, a
52-year-old male, was awarded general damages of R150 000-00 (the
current value of
which is R166 000-00) for chronic post-traumatic
stress disorder and a chronic major depressive disorder. His two
daughters were
killed in a motor vehicle accident. He saw his
daughters at the scene immediately after the accident. Later, he had
to identify
them at a mortuary. He required medication probably for
the rest of his life.
[54] The damages granted in the
matters referred to above serve only as a guideline. In awarding
general damages the Court has a
wide discretion which must be
exercised judially in accordance with the circumstances of each case.
[55] In assessing general damages I
take into account what was stated in
Wright v Multilateral Motor
Vehicle Accidents Fund
, 1997
4EC QOD 31 (N), which was quoted
with approval by the Supreme Court of Appeal in
Road Accident Fund
v Marunga
(2003) 2 All SA 148
(SCA), namely:
“
I
consider that when having regard to previous awards one must
recognise that there is a tendency for awards to be higher than they
were in the past. I believe this to be a natural reflection of the
changes in society, the recognition of greater individual freedom
and
opportunity, rising standards of living and the recognition that our
awards in the past have been significantly lower than
those in most
other countries.” (At P E3-36 to 37)
[56] I have taken into account the
facts of this case, the judgment I have referred to above and I have
decided that an award of
R75 000-00 in respect of general damages for
emotional shock and trauma would be reasonable in the circumstances
of this case.
I consider that an amount of R135 000-00 would be a
fair and reasonable award in respect of general damages in respect of
the neck,
knee and hand injuries. I propose therefore to make a total
award of general damages in the sum of R210 000-00 less the sum of
R25 000-00 paid by the Road Accident Fund.
[57] Mr
Kriel
fairly and
properly conceded during argument that the plaintiff was a good
witness and that her evidence cannot be faulted.
[58] On the question of general
damages Mr
Kriel
has submitted that an amount of R60 000-00,
which includes damages for the psychological trauma and the future
operation to be
undergone by the plaintiff, would be reasonable in
the circumstances of this case.
[59] I disagree with the submission
made by Mr
Kriel.
In my view the quantum of plaintiff’s
general damages is worth more than the amount suggested by Mr
Kriel
which is not fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this case.
[60] In the circumstances the
following order is made:
The first and second defendants are
ordered, jointly and severally, to the one paying the other to be
absolved, to pay plaintiff
as follows:
Future medical expenses R145
100-00;
General damages R 210 000-00
Less
paid by RAF R 25 000 -00
R
185 000-00 R185 000-00;
Interest on the damages set out in
paragraphs (a)
and (b) above at the prescribed
legal rate of interest from a date 14 days after judgment to date of
payment;
Costs of suit, together with
interest thereon calculated at the prescribed legal rate of interest
from a date 14 days after
allocatur
to date of payment. Such
costs are to include the qualifying expenses of Dr. Olivier and Mr.
Eaton, if any;
The plaintiff is declared a
necessary witness.
B. Sandi
Judge of the High Court;
Eastern Cape, Grahamstown
APPEARANCES
Counsel for the Plaintiff : Adv
Schubart SC
Attorney for the plaintiff :
Rushmere Noach Attorneys
Counsel for the Defendants : Adv
Kriel
Attorney for the defendants :
Greyvensteins Inc.
Date Heard : 16/02/2011
Date Delivered : 16/08/2011