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
>>
2018
>>
[2018] ZAGPPHC 272
|
|
Moleki v Road Accident Fund (55380/2014) [2018] ZAGPPHC 272 (26 January 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
IN
THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURTOF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA)
CASE
NO: 55380/2014
DATE:
26/01/2018
MOLEKI
MN
PLAINTIFF
And
ROAD
ACCIDENT
FUND
DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
KHUMALO
J
[1]
The Plaintiff, a petrol attendant, has instituted an action for
compensation against the Road Accident Fund ("the
Fund")
("the Defendant") as a statutory insurer, responsible in
terms of s 17 of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of
1996 ("the RAF
Act "), as amended , claiming payment for damages he alleges to
have suffered as a result of personal
injuries he sustained on 12
August 2013 in a road accident that occurred along the R573 near
KwaMhlanga in the Mpumalanga Province.
[2]
A motor vehicle with registration numbers [...] ("insured
vehicle") driven by Nkabu Isaac Lekgoro ("insured driver")
collided with the Plaintiff who alleges to have been a pedestrian at
the time.
[3]
According to the averments in his particulars of claim the injuries
he sustained are the fracture of the right pubic rami, an
open
fracture proximal left tibia which has resulted in him suffering a
disfigurement of a scar on his left leg and is no longer
able
to engage himself in strength-demanding work, prolonged
standing, walking, and lifting of heavy weights. It all
resulted in
him suffering a temporary to a total disability from 12 August 2013
the date of accident to 31 August 2013.
[4]
Consequently he claimed an amount of R850 000.00 for the total
damages he suffered which amount was constituted as follows:
[4.1]
General
damages
R600,000.00
[4.2]
Estimated future medical expenses
R150, 000.00
[4
.3] Estimated past and future loss of
income
R100,000.00
TOTAL
R850,000.00
[5]
On 16 June 2016, six months before trial, the Plaintiff amended its
particulars of claim in respect of the amount of damages.
The
total amount was amended to Rl 917,802.00 made up as follows:
[5.1]
General
Damages
R600,000.00
[5.2]
Past
Medical Expenses
R25,000.00
[5.3]
Future
Medical Expenses
R300,602.00
[5.4]
Past
loss of Income
R74,400.00
[5.5)
Future
loss of Income
TOTAL
R917,800.00
R1
917,802.00
[6]
Mr Kgwale appeared for the Plaintiff and Mr Mongweki for the
Defendant . The parties have settled the merits. The
Defendant
conceded to 100% liability of Plaintiff's proven or agreed damages.
The issue of quantum in respect of future medical
expenses has also
been settled with the Defendant agreeing to furnish the Plaintiff
with an undertaking as envisaged in s 17 (4)
(a) of the RAF Act. The
parties agreed to delay the issue of general damages which was
postponed sine die. As a result only the
issue of Quantum in respect
of past and future loss of earnings proceeded before the court. The
Defendant is resisting this claim.
[7]
It was indicated on behalf of the Plaintiff that the evidence that
was going to be adduced was that of the Plaintiff and his
Orthopedic
Surgeon and Industrial Psychologist. The Defendant was going to
consider its position with regard to leading oral evidence
of any of
their expert witnesses at the end of the Plaintiff's case.
Furthermore there were joint minutes of both parties'
experts that the parties agreed they were going to
rely upon that were tendered in evidence. The joint minutes
and the
individual reports of the Orthopedic Surgeons, Dr P T Kumbirai for
the Plaintiff and Dr A L Vlok for the Defendant. Also
the joint
minutes of the Occupational Therapists('OT's), S Moagi for the
Plaintiff and T Matsape for the Defendant. A report by
the
Plaintiff's Industrial Psychologist (IT') Dr K C Kgosana, actuarial
calculation of the damage amount by Munro Actuaries, hospital
records
and RAF Form were also handed in.
[8]
Plaintiff's testimony was that his left leg and hip were fractured in
the accident. As a result he experiences a lot of pain
and can no
longer work like before. His performance has dropped. He is still
employed at Khutsong Service Station as a petrol attendant.
Before
the accident he worked very well and was commended by his employer
for his good work, but he is no longer that good due
to the pain he
feels when he is executing his duties. His work entails walking up
and down but due to pain he cannot do that as
often as he used to.
After the accident he used two (2) walking sticks (crutches) in order
to elevate the legs and
was now using one crutch but he still was
not coping at
work.
He was still working only
because his employer is feeling sorry for him. Being a petrol
attendant was the only work that he has
ever done and can do.
Although he receives complains about his work he continues to work
for survival because he has got to keep
the candle burning.
[9]
He confirmed under cross examination that though he received a
complain
about his work, he was never threatened.
He said he
was forcing himself to continue working since the employer is
sympathetic.
When he was at home he was getting his pay.
The
employer was contacted to get permission for him to stay. The
employer also never called him to tell him of any other intention
about him.
Every year they get an increase which he got and his
salary has not been cut.
The employer is so sympathetic.
It
was put to Plaintiff that he did not tell the Industrial Psychologist
that he is employed sympathetically. He said he only told
them that
he cannot work properly as it is tough.
It was furthermore put to
him that nobody from his employer told the health practitioners that
he was under that kind of employment.
Also that he heard about
sympathetic employment from the Occupational Therapist who had
come up with it in the joint
report.
[10]
In re-examination he was asked to confirm that he did tell the
Industrial Psychologist that he was hired on sympathetic basis.
The
Plaintiff closed its case. The Defendant also closed its case.
[11]
Mr Kgwale brought the attention of the court to what is
reported in the joint minute of the OT's that: The Plaintiff
returned to work
two months post accident.
The physical
demands of his pre and post accident occupation falls within the
parameters of light to medium physical demands as
he presented with
functional capacity to handle sedentary to light physical demands. He
therefore does not meet the demands of
his pre and post occupation as
a petrol attendant as he now has reduced dynamic mobility, standing
and walking endurance. His residual
physical capacity would affect
future job prospects and lead to restrictions of job freedom. He is
presently sympathetically employed
and if it happens that he losses
this job, he may struggle to find ideal employment mainly due to the
physical restrictions, lack
of experience in administration
occupations and the need for reasonable accommodation. They say he
may find it difficult to obtain
gainful employment which falls within
his residual physical capacity and vocational skills in the open
labour market in the future,
deferring further opinion to the
Industrial Psychologist.
[12]
Mr Kgwale also made reference to the report of Dr M C Kgosana
("Kgosana"), the IP where she states that : the available
information indicate s the residual abilities of the Plaintiff
post accident. He
managed, post-accident
to
return
to
his
pre-accident
job
as a petrol
attendant. He has been employed ever since t ill to date in 2016.
Both the Orthopedic Surgeons and the Occupational
Therapists noted
that he is not
capable
of coping with
his
duties
.
This implies that
the
continuous participation
i
n
the role
is
likely to aggravate
his
condition.
His situation is worsened by the fact he is not undertaking any
medical to ameliorate his challenges. In summary its noted that
the
accident had deleterious effect on
the
claimant's
ability
to
earn
an
income.
[13]
In
addition
Kgwale
noted that the information
confirms that Plaintiff has no capacity to do
the same job. He reiterated Dr Kgosana's rep ort that the Plaintiff
reported
that
he was absent for
three
months
and was paid but not
his
fu
ll
salary
,
accordingly suffered loss of income due to the accident. He
is
currently employed
in his
pre-accident
employment, albeit with
some
limitations
.
[14]
Mr Kgwale hence argued that Plaintiff has capacity to do only the
same job for a sympathetic employer. It would be difficult
for him to
earn anymore.
[15]
He thereafter referred to the Actuarial Report that refers to his
loss of income at pre injury to be an amount of R213
500, post
injury to be R139 100 and therefore to amount to R74 400. For future
loss of income pre injury R1 462 300 post injury
to be an amount of R
544 500.00 and therefore
the
future
l
oss
to
amount
to
R992
200.
[1
6]
Kgwale suggested a contingency of 20% to be applied on the gross
loss of income, arriving at an amount of R1 169 840.00. He also
suggested that the most is a 35 % contingency that will then amount
to R959 755.00 if Plaintiff taken as unemployable.
[17]
Mr Mongweka on the other hand pointed out that according to Moagi and
Matsape, the OT's report, the Plaintiff has been employed
as
a
petrol attendant since 1997.
He has been in the same job for over
14 years when he was involved in an accident in 2013. Even though
there is physical demand
mentioned about his job there is no
reference to
sympathetic employment or early retirement
in the
joint Minute
by the Orthopedic Surgeons.
[18]
Mongweka also highlighted that the Plaintiff was only away
from
work for a period of two months
during which period he
alleged to have been paid by the Department of Labour when he was
paid by his employer.
The difference between what was paid to him
and his salary was actually a mere R562.00 per month.
If it is
multiplied by two for the months he stayed away, the shortfall
amounts to
R1124.00
which is his past loss of earnings. The
calculation of loss of earnings for two months to be R74 000 is not
backed up by evidence.
[19]
He argued that he has considered the report of both joint minutes of
the Industrial Psychologists ("IT") and the
Occupational
Therapists (OT").
[20]
The fact that Plaintiff is said to can be employed for sedentary to
light work was according to him of concern as well and
to be noted
that the position taken by the Occupational Therapists about the
sympathetic job was not corroborated, as the information
was
not requested or verified with the employer. The OT's also deferred
to the Industrial Psychologist
to deal
with Plaintiff's unemployability whose
opinion is that Plaintiff
's present physical
capacity meets the physical requirement of sedentary, light with some
aspects of lower level of
static medium types
of work
category. He said he recognizes that the physical strength required
for his pre and post accident occupation
as a petrol attendant
falls within the parameter of light type of work category, however
requires prolonged standing and frequent
walking.
Also the
conclusion that his physical capacity does not fully match the
physical requirements of his pre-accident occupation.
[21]
Defendant's Counsel further argued that Plaintiff's assessment was
also only done in 2016 and with no follow up, The calculations
are
also not properly done. The remuneration he lost was for 2 months.
Evidence of the Plaintiff and the report of the OT not supported
by
the Orthopedic Surgeon who had supported a loss of earning of 5%
since he is not unemployed. Past loss of R1124 should therefore
be
considered and thereafter 10% on a future loss on an injured income,
concomitant with the exact injury. Pre and post accident
injury
should be the spread to R 146 230.00 + Actual loss less 5% capacity,
looking at R147 354 uninjured .
[22]
The Defendants therefore noted that it is reported that Plaintiff's
career and income would have progressed if the accident
had not
happened, in 2013 earning R4 050 per month increasing at age 50 in
August 2019 to a semi-skilled worker (upper earning
R136 300 per year
compared to R48 600.00 per year). He argued that the calculated loss
of R74 000.00 cannot be justified. Plaintiffs
evidence though was
that he received an increase every year and never a cut to his
salary,
a positive progression.
His statement contradicts his
report to the experts that his salary stayed the same at R4050.
ANALYSIS
[23]
The primary object in respect of a claim
for
Lex
Aquilia
is to restore the Plaintiff's
patrimony, and, as far as possible, to place the Plaintiff in a
position he or she would
have been in had the delict not been commit
ted:
Standard General Insurance Co Ltd v Dugmore
1996 (1) SA
33
(A) 41
[1996] ZASCA 89
; ,
1996 4 All SA 415
(A) 418. Therefore in considering
whether the Plaintiff is entitled to be compensated for a past loss
of income, actual pecuniary
loss of earnings is what is referred to.
The question of him receiving a salary during his absence at work and
the exact amount
of his salary at the time is as a result
significant. The amount awarded therefore must do justice to the
parties, and must reflect
the interest of both the Plaintiff and the
Defendant. As the compensation is in relation to an
inability/disability to have made
an income or earned the salary, one
must ascertain whether any loss has in fact been suffered; see
Rudman
v Road
Accident Fund
(2002]
4 All SA 422
(SCA),
2003 (2) SA 234
(SCA). In reference to Voet (9.2.16) this interesting
statement in regard to loss of income was made that:
"Where
damages have to be compensated, only
direct loss
is taken into
consideration , and not damages flowing from a new supervening cause,
even though the direct loss permitted such new
loss to operate.
[24]
It has been confirmed that Plaintiff was paid his salary for two
months, that is the period when he was at home. He had alleged
to
Kgosana and Moagi and some of the experts to have received a payment
of half his salary from the Labour Department. On the other
hand in
his evidence in chief he testified that
when he was at home he was
getting his pay.
He also was at home for two months not three as
he had reported to them. This means by November 2013 he was back at
work. Under
the circumstances the court finds that Plaintiff did not
suffer a loss of income albeit, a possible shortfall of R1124.00
(also
uncertain) for the two months. In
Van Heerden v African
Guarantee
&
Indemnity Co Ltd
1951 (3) (CPD) 730, it
was held that 'as the payment was made as wages and was not due to
the supervening of a new cause, such as
charity, that Plaintiff did
not suffer a loss of wages and could not recover the amount claimed.'
[25]
The issue the court needs to then determine, is the amount of future
loss of earnings. It is Plaintiff 's testimony that his
left leg and
hip were fractured in the accident and as a result he cannot work as
he used to do due to the pains. After the accident
he used two (2)
walking sticks in order to elevate the legs.
He was now using one
crutch when he testified but even then he said he still was not
coping at work. The same was also reported
to the Occupational
Therapists and the Industrial Psychologists. It is however
to
be noted that the report of Moagi was that in March 2016 when he went
for the consultation,
even
though
he
still
reported
to
be
using
one
crutch
when
in
pain
he
did
not come
with
any.
In
considering
the
effect
of
the
injuries
to
his
functionality this
fact
has
to be
taken
into
account.
[26]
Although I cannot find Plaintiff to be a bad witness, he however
tends to exaggerate his
situation,
ameliorating
facts
trying
to
be
convincing
of
his
entitlement to what he
is claiming from the
Defendant, which effort was
unnecessary.
It must be
taken into account that he is not a person who can be excused for
lack of erudition. He has a Grade 12 qualification
and is 47 years
old therefore would appreciate the difference between overstating
facts and reality.
[27]
Crucial facts relating to the nature and extent of the effect of the
injuries to his employment were uncertain when evaluated
on his
evidence. He had, inter alia, told Kgosana that he works shifts
because his leg aches more. But even prior the accident
he worked
shifts and therefore that condition of his employment not related to
the accident. The issue of an unaltered salary since
2013 was also
left in doubt. In his testimony he confirmed that he has been getting
a raise every year and has never had a salary
cut. The information he
reported to the health practitioners was that he has never had a
raise since 2013. Hospital records indicate
that his annual salary at
the time of accident, that is August 2013 was +- R36 000.00 compared
to the monthly income of R4050.00
he alleged to have been his salary
since then until the date of trial. His salary slip of September 2013
indicates a net salary
of R3 266.23 which is likely what he was
earning at the time, progressing to R4050.00 by 2016.The court will
take into consideration
that the actuarial calculations have been
made on the latter salary based on unclear and unverified
information. It also put the
matter of the shortfall in his past loss
of income and the whole calculations of his future loss of income
into question.
[28]
This is therefore crucial information the verification of which was
necessary. The correct information could have been established
and or
verified easily by a phone call to his employment but it was not done
except for one attempted call by Kgosana and the employer
was branded
unavailable. It is not indicated how such a conclusion that the
employer was unavailable could have been made from
a single phone
call. No allegation is made that they were advised as such by his
employment. The information could have been verified
by other senior
people in his employment not necessarily his employer.
[29]
The Plaintiff 's failure to lead such evidence is fundamental.
Verification could have not only brought certainty with regard
to the
factual situation at his employment but also clarified the not so
clear-cut decisive fact about whether Plaintiff is in
a sympathetic
employment and how much his performance had been affected by
the accident. It remains
unlikely that he would not
have been threatened up to today since going back to work in 2013 if
he has been working as he alleges.
[30]
It is significant that Moagi, the OT reported that Plaintiff
presented himself without the use of a crutch but also that he
walked
without a gait, even though he observed that his walking endurance
was to be negatively affected by the reported left knee
pain. The
pain was found to be moderate and that he presented with adequate
muscle strength to actively engage in light types of
workloads. He
was able to execute all work dynamic postures however restricted when
hopping and crouching he also squatted symmetrically.
He was able to
maintain sitting, standing and walking endurance in tasks and
presented with
functional physical endurance in light workloads.
The physical strength of his occupation falls
within
the
parameter
of
light
type
of
work
category
and
requires
prolonged
standing and frequent walking.
Its reported that his work
entails filling up the petrol, checking oil and tyres, cleaning
the windscreen, giving customers
change, so nothing in his work
involves carrying heavyweights or weights per se. The chances of him
getting better was not ruled
out by Moagi stating that
considering
the current work environment and the injuries Plaintiff sustained, he
is of the opinion that with suitable strengthening
of left leg and
biokenetic
intervention
it
is
likely
that
his
physical
capacity
might
improve.
The
assessor had then recommended that Plaintiff receives
recommended optimum treatment and rehabilitation which he was not
undergoing,
to maximise his quality of life. The report concludes
that
should
he
lose
his
current
job
he
may
struggle
to
find
an
ideal
employment mainly due
to
his physical restrictions, taking
note
of Dr Kumbirai that he estimates his decrease
in
work capacity
in
such jobs
at
is
5%.
[31]
Mr Kgosana, as referred to by Defendant's Counsel also took note that
the pain Plaintiff complains about in his pelvic and
leg will limit
his choice of occupation and therefore he would be vulnerable
and compromised in jobs which require prolonged
standing, walking and
lifting of heavy weights as they will exacerbate his pain. He
reported that this would affect future job
prospects and lead to
restrictions of job freedom. He estimated his decrease in work
capacity in such jobs at 5 % as well calculating
his whole person
impairment at 7%. Mr Vlok echoed the same sentiments.
[32]
The opinion should be balanced against the fact that Plaintiff has
testified that he has never been threatened at his job.
The employer
also never called him to tell him of any other intention about him.
Every year they
get an
increase which
he
got
and
his
salary has not been cut.
The alleged diminishing of his
capabilities would be expected not to have affected his employment in
a way for the 3 years post
the accident. Consequently the fact that
it has not, should be considered positively with regard to the
probabilities of
him finding the same job if he loses his job.
Mr Kgosana also acknowledged that Plaintiff would have probably
stayed in the same
job market until retirement age. He had noted that
he might be vulnerable to early retirement having been affected
by the
accident since it has been reported that the
continued employment in the job will exacerbate or worsen his
condition
expediting the time out of the labour market. Moreover if
he loses his job he might be unemployed for a very long time. I
consider
that a neutral factor since he may find the job in the same
sphere but it does not mean that it will not lead to
early
retirement. The latter scenario would be justifiably
considered if it has been ascertained if indeed the Plaintiff is
employed
in a sympathetic position, to calculate the loss suggesting
the normal post accident contingency to be used. The actuarial
calculation
has reasonably taken the retirement age to be 62. Kgosana
has suggested contigency under this head that the normal post
accident
contingency be used.
[33]
Dr Vlok, the Orthopaedic Surgeon was consulted by the Plaintiff on 25
May 2015 to whom he reported that he was a passenger
in the vehicle
that was involved in an accident.
He noted that Plaintiff has a
normal gait
and a decreased movement in the left knee and subtle
loss of movement in the left ankle. No crutches are mentioned.
Despite his
complains relating to the left leg the Plaintiff has been
able to meet the physical demands of his work up until the date of
consultation.
He is of the opinion that he will able to continue
to do so. Further surgery he required might cause him further pain
and
suffering, although with promise of improvement as suggested by
Moagi.
[34]
Matsape the Occupational Therapist saw the Plaintiff on 5 October
2016. He reported that Plaintiff was discharged with crutches
which
he used for 6 weeks after the accident. He noted that Plaintiff
is currently using one. He recorded that hips and left
knee and right
ankle and ankle joints movements were within normal range with good
muscle strength. He however presented
limited ROM of the left
knee and reported pain in the left knee and ankle. He said the
Plaintiff was walking with abnormal gait
due to injured right knee
and ankle. Plaintiff reported to him severe pain when walking or
standing for more than an hour
or lifting heavy objects. His
pain classified as 1% 1WP moderate. According to the tests he must be
able to undergo sedentary type
of work but he did not meet his pre
and post accident requirements of his work, changing positions more
often when sitting. Reporting
pain after standing for 20 minutes.
Plaintiff told Matsape he was working with 1 crutch.
[35]
Matsape also refers to the Plaintiff having been an educator at
Mmakuba Primary School and that he resigned at the time of
accident
intending to work part time. He noted from other reports that he had
full range of the movement of the left knee presenting
mild pain. He
took into account Vlok 's comment that Plaintiff does not fall under
the serious injury on WPI Score of 6 % nor does
he qualify for the
narrative test. He indicated that according to the dictionary of
Occupational Titles,
a petrol attendant falls within the medium
type of occupation.
He concluded that based on his test results
he falls under the sedentary type of job and therefore his injuries
will affect his
competency in the labour market and that he is
sympathetically employed. He however also concluded that it is his
opinion that
with successful treatment and reasonable accommodation,
Plaintiff will continue with his job until normal retirement age of
60
years, deferring the loss of earnings to IP specialists.
[36]
Kgosana
also noted in the report that the Plaintiff was
44
years old
at the time of accident earning
R4050 monthly
and
R48 600 per annum
as a petrol attendant
which earnings were
between the MQ and the UQ of
semi-skilled employees. He
could have
progressed to the UQ OF the scale at the age of SO (Koch 2015). From
the age of 51, his earnings would have
stabilised and he would have
probably
retired at the age of 60 -65, depending on the policy of
the employer and his health.
The report
refers to a follow up
discussion with
the
claimant's employer
on
the
23rd of
May 2016
about which
its
said
the
attempt to do
so
failed as the employer was not
available.
Its said working for a sympathetic employer should he
have his kind of job, it will be difficult for him
to
earn more.
[37]
An award of damages for the loss of a claimant's earnings or earning
capacity is intended to allow him to enjoy financial benefits
equal
to the quantum of the earnings potentially to be lost by him; see
Windeyer J,
in
Bresatz v Przibilla
[1962] HCA
54
; (1962) 36 AUR 212
(HCA) at 213
stressed that each case
depends upon its own facts. According to the Judge
"all
'contingencies'
are
not adverse":
All
"vicissitudes"
are not harmful.
[38]
Indeed the circumstances of cases differ and this is a very important
consideration. Taking all the circumstances of the Plaintiff
as
narrated in the health and medical specialists reports and hospital
records, specifically also the issue of his actual past
loss of
earnings and the fact that he did receive an increase as he has
confirmed every year during his testimony on the date of
trial. His
salary was according to his salary slip of September 2013 an amount
of R3 226.23 which is collaborated by the recordal
in his hospital
documents of a salary of R36 000 per annum, that in 2016 there was a
progression to R4050.00 and the uncertainty
regarding the possibility
of him staying in his job until retirement or of being fired and not
finding a similar job or any other
job, I am of the opinion that
using the calculations of the actuary, the calculation on his past
loss of earnings should be disregarded
and on the remaining amount of
R917 800 of future loss of earnings, a contingency of 30% be
applicable.
[38]
It must be also be borne in mind that the amount of any discount
varies according to the circumstances of each case. Evident
is that
the rate of the discount cannot be assessed on any logical basis
because the assessment, in the main, is arbitrary and
depends on the
trial Judge's impression of the case. (See:
Legal Insurance
Company Ltd v Botes
1963 (1) SA 608
(A) at 614F and
Van
der Plaats v South African Mutual Fire and General Insurance
Company
ltd
1980
(3)
SA
105
(A)
at
114-115).
[39]
In the result the following order is made:
1.
The Defendant is held liable for 100% of the Plaintiff's proven or
agreed
damages as agreed between the parties.
2.
The Plaintiff's claim for loss of past earnings is dismissed;
3.
The Defendant is to pay the Plaintiff a sum of R642 460 (Six Hundrend
and Forty Two Thousand
Four Hundrend and Sixty Rand) for future loss
of earnings.
3.
The issue of the quantum of damages relating to general damages
suffered by the plaintiff
are hereby separated from all other
issues in this matter and will be determined at a later stage
4.
In respect of the claim for future medical expenses, the Defendant is
ordered to deliver
to Plaintiff, within reasonable time, an
undertaking in terms of
Section 17(4)(a)
of the
Road Accident Fund
Act, Act
56 of 1996, wherein the Defendant undertakes to pay to the
Plaintiff 100% of the cost of future accommodation in a hospital or a
nursing home or treatment of, or rendering of a service or supplying
of goods to Plaintiff pursuant to the injuries Plaintiff sustained
in
a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 12
August 2013, as agreed and after the costs have been incurred
and on proof thereof.
5.
The Defendant to pay the Plaintiff 's costs of suit to date with
interest thereon at the rate of 15.5%per annum calculated from date
after
allocatur,
____________
NV
KHUMALOJ
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
On
behalf of
Plaintiff:
KGWALE
Instructed
by
LESOMO ATTORNEYS
Tel: 012
7712433
Ref: LES/RAF/006
On
behalf of Defendant:
MONGWEKA
Instructed
by:
TAU PHALANE ATTORNEYS
Ref; Ms KT
Mahlangu/NR/RAF