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
>>
2009
>>
[2009] ZAGPJHC 111
|
|
Molise v Road Accident Fund (12944/07) [2009] ZAGPJHC 111 (14 October 2009)
SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case No: 12944/07
Date: 14/10/2009
In the matter between
MOLISE
POTLAKO
.......................................................................
Plaintiff
and
ROAD ACCIDENT
FUND
.........................................................
Defendant
J U D G M E N T
MEYER, J
[1] The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is for payment
of compensation for damages suffered by him as a result of
bodily
injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle collision that occurred
on 11 July 2006. The plaintiff suffered what is commonly
referred to
as a whiplash injury of the cervical spine. Summons was issued on
behalf of the plaintiff on 22 May 2007. The amount
initially claimed
by the plaintiff was the sum of R772 000.00. On 17 September 2009,
the claim was amended and increased to the
sum of just over R2.8
million.
[2] The matter was enrolled for trial today. I was advised by the
parties that the defendant intended to apply for a postponement
of
the matter and that there was a real possibility of the matter being
postponed. The matter stood down and the parties settled
it on the
following basis:
The parties agreed that the defendant is to pay an amount of R60
000.00 to the plaintiff in full and final settlement of the
plaintiff’s claim.
The parties agreed that the defendant would furnish the plaintiff
with an undertaking in terms of section 17(4)(a) of the Road
Accidents Fund Act 56 of 1996 for the costs of the future
accommodation of the plaintiff in a hospital or nursing home or
treatment
of or rendering of a service or supplying of goods to him
arising out of the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle
collision
on 11 July 2006, after such costs have been incurred and
upon prove thereof.
The parties agreed that the defendant would pay the plaintiff’s
agreed or taxed costs of the action until today, which
is 14 October
2009.
[3] The only issue between the parties is whether or not the costs to
be paid by the defendant should be on the scale applicable
in the
High Court or on the one applicable in the Magistrates’ Court.
[4] I have been referred to various passages in the medico-legal
reports. The plaintiff contention is that the value of the
undertaking
in terms of section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund is
the sum of R42 129.00. The defendant’s contention is that the
value thereof is the sum of R29 260.00. I accept that the value
thereof is probably somewhere between the two figures mentioned
by
counsel which, in my view, probably brings the plaintiff’s
claim within the jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court.
[5] It is always difficult to determine a fair costs order once the
parties have settled a matter, because one does not have the
benefit
of the witnesses and the facts upon which one can ascertain a
justifiable costs order are limited. But in all the circumstances,
I
consider it to be fair to both parties that the defendant should be
ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs on the Magistrates’
Court scale.
[6] In the result I make an order in terms of the draft order which
counsel prepared for me. I have initialled the draft order
for
identification purposes.
------------------------------