About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2012
>>
[2012] ZAFSHC 154
|
|
Pfister v Road Accident Fund (2663/2009) [2012] ZAFSHC 154 (23 August 2012)
FREE STATE HIGH
COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
Case No.: 2663/2009
In the matter between:
KARL MEINERT
PFISTER
.......................................................
Applicant
and
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND
.....................................................
Respondent
JUDGMENT:
HANCKE, AJP
_____________________________________________________
HEARD ON:
IN CHAMBERS
_____________________________________________________
DELIVERED ON:
23 AUGUST 2012
_____________________________________________________
[1] The applicant applies
for leave to appeal against certain parts of a judgment of this court
handed down on the 15
th
December 2011.
[2] This court awarded
the following damages in favour of the applicant:
Lost of earnings R 354
676,00
Future loss of earnings 2
868 173,00
General damages
450
000,00
TOTAL
R3 672 849,00
[3] The parts of the
judgment in respect of which leave to appeal is sought against are
the award of R450 000,00 in respect of the
general damages as well as
the amount awarded to the applicant in respect of his claim for loss
of earnings, more particularly
what constitutes the applicant’s
post accident residual earnings and earning capacity.
[4] It is submitted on
behalf of the applicant that another court may reasonably well give
substantially more weight to the wholly
uncontested factual evidence
produced on behalf of the applicant. It is also argued on behalf of
the applicant that another court
may give a different interpretation
to the agreements reached between the industrial psychologists in the
joint minute and as contended
for by the applicant, bearing in mind
the uncontested evidence of Mrs Van Jaarsveld, qualifying their
agreements.
[5] As far as general
damages is concerned and relying on the judgment of
DE JONGH v
DU PISANIE N.O.
2005 (5) SA 475
(SCA) the applicant submitted
that another court, taking into account the nature and extent of the
applicant’s injuries,
may reasonably well arrive at a different
conclusion by increasing the award for general damages. In this
regard it is submitted
that an award between R800 000,00 and R1 000
000,00 will be more appropriate.
[6] Having regard to the
facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that there exist
a reasonable prospect of success
on appeal. See
BOTES v NEDBANK
1983 (3) SA 27
(A) at 28C-D. It also appears that there is difference
of opinion amongst the Provincial Divisions as far as the calculation
of
the aforesaid awards are concerned. I am of the view that leave
should therefore be granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
[7] Accordingly, the
following orders are issued:
1. Leave is granted to
the applicant to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
2. Costs of this
application will be costs in the appeal.
___________________
S. P. B. HANCKE, AJP
On behalf of the
applicant:
Adv. G. J. Strydom SC
Instructed by:
Schoeman Maree Inc.
BLOEMFONTEIN
On behalf of the
respondent: Adv. P. J. J. Zietsman
Instructed by:
Honey Attorneys
BLOEMFONTEIN
/eb