About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2022
>>
[2022] ZAGPPHC 427
|
|
Ndlovu v S (32846/2016) [2022] ZAGPPHC 427 (15 June 2022)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE
NO.: 32846/2016
REPORTABLE:
NO
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUGDES: NO
REVISED.
15/06/2022
In
the matter between:
C
S
NDLOVU
Plaintiff
and
THE
ROAD ACCIDENT
FUND
Defendant
JUDGMENT
van
der Westhuizen, J
[1]
The plaintiff claimed damages suffered as a result of injuries
sustained in a motor
vehicle accident that occurred on 25 April 2015.
At the time the plaintiff was 21 years of age and was a passenger in
the vehicle.
[2]
On a previous occasion, the defendant conceded liability for a 100%
of the damages
that the plaintiff may prove or the amount agreed
upon. The defendant’s defence was struck out in terms of a
court order
granted on 1 March 2022.
[3]
The defendant rejected the claim for general damages and that claim
was referred to
the Health Professions Council for determination. The
only rubrics of damages that require consideration is that of loss of
earnings
and future medical expenses.
[4]
The plaintiff sustained the following injuries:
(a)
Multiple lacerations to the abdomen, the face and back;
(b)
Fracture of the left clavicle;
(c)
Compression fracture of L1 vertebra.
[5]
At the time of the collision, the plaintiff was unemployed. She held
a grade 12 qualification
that she obtained in 2013. The plaintiff
commenced work as a waitress during 2018 and continuous to be so
employed.
[6]
The only issue that required consideration at hearing of the matter
was that of contingency.
It is trite law that the determination of
contingencies to be applied lies within the discretion of the court
taking into consideration
a number of facts.
[7]
In casu
the plaintiff was unemployed at the time of the
accident and was not actively seeking employment. At the time of the
accident,
the plaintiff had no work experience. Whatever the
potential earning capacity the plaintiff had prior to the accident,
was intentionally
not pursued by the plaintiff. The plaintiff only
actively sought and obtained employment during 2018, after the claim
was instituted.
The reason for that was not explained. One may
speculate in that regard.
[8]
The actuary who compiled a report on behalf of the plaintiff
considered no past loss
of income and only opined in respect of
future loss of income. An amount of R589 479.00 was calculated
applying a 10% contingency
for past loss and a 25% contingency for
future loss.
[9]
In my view, in the present matter the appropriate approach would be
to grant a lump
sum in respect of future loss of earnings. Applying
that approach, an adequate compensation would be an amount of
R589 479.00.
I
grant the following order:
1.
The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff an amount of
R589 479.00 in
respect of loss of future earnings;
2.
The defendant is to provide the plaintiff with an undertaking in
terms of the
provisions of section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund
Act for a 100% of future medical expenses that may be incurred;
3.
The defendant is to pay costs of suit on a party and party scale,
including the
costs of experts appointed on behalf of the plaintiff,
as well as the costs to attend medico-legal examinations by all
parties.
Such costs to further include the costs of counsel.
4.
The claim for general damages is postponed
sine die.
C
J VAN DER WESTHUIZEN
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
Judgment
Reserved:
24 May 2022
On
behalf of Plaintiff:
T Maphelela
Instructed
by:
Phukubye Attorneys
On
behalf of Defendant:
No appearance
Instructed
by:
Judgment
Delivered:
15 June 2022