About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: High Court, Northern Cape Division, Kimberley
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: High Court, Northern Cape Division, Kimberley
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZANCHC 23
|
|
Van Niekerk v Road Accident Fund (1034/2013) [2024] ZANCHC 23 (2 February 2024)
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 HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
(NORTHERN CAPE
DIVISION, KIMBERLEY)
Case
Number:
1034/2013
Heard:
02 to 04 May 2023
Delivered:
02 February 2024
Reportable: YES /
NO
Circulate to Judges: YES
/
NO
Circulate to Regional
Magistrates: YES /
NO
Circulate to Magistrates:
YES /
NO
In
the matter between:
ADRIAN
ERASMUS VAN NIEKERK
PLAINTIFF
and
ROAD
ACCIDENT FUND
DEFENDANT
Coram:
Tyuthuza AJ
JUDGMENT
Tyuthuza
AJ
INTRODUCTION
1.
The plaintiff,
Mr van Niekerk, instituted an action against the defendant, the Road
Accident Fund, claiming damages arising from
the injuries he
sustained as a result of a motor vehicle collision that took place on
2 June 2009.
2.
The defendant
conceded liability for the plaintiff’s proven damages in the
action. On 4 October 2022 Sieberhagen AJ ordered
inter
alia
, that
the defendant pay to the plaintiff 100% of the still to be proven
damages resulting from the collision. The order further
recorded that the issues relating to the quantification of the
Plaintiff’s damages be remanded for trial.
3.
These
proceedings, therefore, relate to the determination of the
plaintiff’s claim for past and future medical expenses, loss
of
earnings and earning capacity, general damages and costs.
4.
The plaintiff
filed expert reports in respect of an orthopaedic surgeon, an
occupational therapist, an industrial psychologist and
an actuary.
The defendant did not file any expert reports.
5.
The
plaintiff seeks an order in terms of section 17(4)(a) of the Road
Accident Fund Act, 56 of 1996 ("the Act"), that
the
defendant be directed to furnish an undertaking to
compensate the
Plaintiff with 100% of the costs arising from the collision for the
plaintiff’s future accommodation in a hospital
or nursing home
or treatment of or rendering of a service or supplying of goods,
after such costs have been incurred and upon proof
thereof.
6.
The
plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon, Dr Olivier, noted in his report
that the comminuted proximal femoral fracture is stabilized
by an
antegrade intramedullary nail and that provision should be made for
the removal of the intramedullary construct. The
plaintiff
would be a candidate for a total right knee replacement and a
revision procedure about 15 to 20 years later. Ms
Howell, the
plaintiff’s occupational therapist, is of the view that the
plaintiff will benefit from supplementary health
services by an
occupational therapist, a physiotherapist, a biokineticist and the
provision of assistive devices and equipment.
7.
I am satisfied
in the circumstances that a directive in terms of section 17(4) of
the Act should be ordered in respect of the anticipated
future
medical costs of the plaintiff.
FACTUAL
BACKGROUND
8.
On 2 June 2009
at approximately 12:00, along the Postmasburg and Kimberley road, a
collision occurred between two vehicles, one
driven by a C Prinsloo,
bearing registration number B[...] 5[...] N[...], (“the insured
driver”) and the other then
driven by the plaintiff. At
the time of the collision the plaintiff was 19 years of age, and he
is presently 34.
9.
As a result of
the collision the plaintiff suffered various abrasions and
lacerations of the scalp, a fracture to the right femur
and a
disruption of the infra-patellar tendon of the right knee joint.
10.
The defendant
has filed its plea and
denies
each and every
allegation and avers that the collusion was due to the sole
negligence of the driver of the
identified
vehicle
and prays
that the plaintiff’s claim be dismissed with costs.
EXPERTS:
11.
On 21 April
2023, the plaintiff made an application in terms of rule 38(2), that
the evidence of Dr Olivier be given on affidavit
at the hearing. The
application was served on the defendant’s attorneys on 21 April
2023 but was not opposed. From
the bar, Mr Mogano for the
defendant, asked that the evidence of Dr Olivier not be admitted but
it was the plaintiff’s case
that the application remained
unopposed and that the evidence of Dr Olivier was undisputed as the
defendant had not provided a
report from an orthopaedic surgeon. I
am of the view that the plaintiff made out a case for the relief
sought and granted
the order in favour of the plaintiff.
ORTHOPAEDIC
SURGEON
12.
Dr Olivier,
the plaintiff’s orthopaedic surgeon evaluated the plaintiff
during March 2023. His report detailed the plaintiff’s
injuries as, “
comminuted
proximal right-sided femoral fracture, extensive laceration over the
anterior aspect of the right knee, multiple deep
lacerations of the
facial area, soft tissue injury of the left knee, soft tissue injury
of the right elbow
”.
He also reports, “
It
is therefore my view, that the degenerative changes which are present
in the right knee is the direct result of the significant
injury that
the client sustained to the patellofemoral joint as well as the
patellar tendon. Since the accident occurred
that client is
unable to walk at a fast pace or to perform activities such as
squatting and kneeling. The client is unable
to balance himself
on ladders or scaffolding or to carry heavy objects. Based on
the evaluation the client is limited to
a job that entails
administrative duties or light duties only. I am of the opinion that
his injuries were severe and he will continue
to suffer intermittent
permanent and serious long term impairment in respect of his work and
personal life
”.
He further states “
in
the long term he will probably need to do less physical demanding
activities and do more supervisory work, especially after the
age of
55-60 years.
”
Dr
Olivier further noted that the functional restrictions, which he
would describe as permanent, would have a negative impact on
the
plaintiff’s future vocational opportunities in that the
plaintiff is unable to compete against uninjured individuals
in the
open labour market. According to Dr Olivier the plaintiff’s
ability to perform normal duties which would be
expected of a diesel
mechanic is compromised.
13.
Dr Hunter, the
plaintiff’s industrial psychologist who evaluated the plaintiff
during May 2015 and again in December 2020
was tasked to report on
the plaintiff’s work potential both prior and after the
collision. He reported, “
considering
Mr Van Niekerk’s age, education and training, employment
history, collateral obtained and his current employment,
it seems
reasonable to conclude that, had he not been injured he would
probably have progressed to the level of foreman sometime
during
2020/2021. He would then have worked at Paterson Job Grade C3 as
opposed to his current job rate i.e. Paterson Job Grade
C2. It is
envisaged that he would have worked as a foreman, earning
inflationary increases until the age of approximately 65 when
he
would have retired
”.
Under re-examination Mr Hunter testified that it would be
highly unlikely for the plaintiff in his injured state
to progress to
Paterson Job Grade C5. He further stated that the plaintiff was
fortunate in being able to obtain jobs from
people who knew him.
14.
Dr Hunter
further reports that, “
the
Plaintiff’s employment prospects in the open labour market had
been significantly adversely affected and that it is highly
unlikely
that the Plaintiff will be able to continue to work until the normal
retirement age”.
He
states, “
he
may still be able to progress to the level of foreman as, what would
have been the case, pre-morbidly. However, the role of a
foreman will
still include performing physical work, which he will continue to
struggle with.
”
OCCUPATIONAL
THERAPIST
15.
Ms Howell, the
plaintiff’s occupational therapist, who evaluated the plaintiff
on 16 March 2023 in relation to the plaintiff’s
work duties,
was of the view that, “
the
plaintiff primarily works with earth-moving equipment and currently
works on excavators
”.
“
The
plaintiff’s work can be categorised as medium work parameters
with occasional requirements for very heavy lifting
”.
“
Considering
the frequency and reparative nature of his work, the existing
pathology and the recommended surgery, the Plaintiff is
not suited
for medium, heavy and very heavy physical demands which may
accelerate degenerative changes of the right knee. He
is best
suited to a position where he is able to alternate between
standing/walking and sitting regularly (therefore sedentary
to light
work parameters). As degeneration of his right knee progresses,
pain and discomfort with prolonged walking and standing
will likely
increase. His work productivity is then expected to be negatively
impacted on by the worsening of his right knee symptoms
in the long
run, restricting him to sedentary to occasional high work demands.
Even though the Plaintiff continues to work
in an environment
that requires him to participate in medium to occasionally very heavy
work; note should be taken that he has
continued to do so with daily
pain, requiring pain medication, tasks adaption (sitting instead of
kneeling) and task avoidance
(asking colleagues to assist); making
him an unfair competitor in the open labour market, compared to his
uninjured peers. He
also finds himself working for a
sympathetic employer who overlooks his ability to work in kneeling
and crouching. His ability
to retain his current occupation may
be jeopardised in the long run.
”
16.
She testified
that the work currently done by the plaintiff requires him to carry
heavy objects and as a result of expected degeneration
the plaintiff
would need a knee replacement much sooner. She further
testified that the plaintiff should only do light work.
Under
cross examination she testified that it is recommended that the
plaintiff does not continue to lift heavy objects,
that his work
required a lot of kneeling and crouching and constantly using his
knee and as a result it is worsening at an accelerated
pace.
ACTUARY
17.
Mr Boshoff,
the plaintiff’s actuary, completed an initial actuarial report
based on the report of Mr Hunter and instructions
received from
plaintiff’s legal representatives, as at 1 October 2022.
This report makes provision for retirement at
60 and for the
deduction of contingencies injured at 25%. According to this
report the actuary calculated the loss of earnings
in the total
amount of R5,293,000.00 (past loss at R223,600.00 and future loss at
R5,069,400.00)
18.
At trial, I
was presented with two additional reports based on the same
information issued by Mr Boshoff, as at 1 June 2023.
The first
report makes provision for retirement at 50 and the contingencies is
applied at 40% on future earnings. According
to this report the
actuary calculated the loss of earnings to be an amount of
R5,045,700.00 (past loss: R145,700.00 and future
loss:
R4,900,000.00). The second report presented at trial makes
provision for retirement at 55 and the contingencies is
applied at
40% on injured future earnings and 15% on uninjured. According
to this report the actuary calculated the loss
of earnings to be an
amount of R5,035,300.00 (past loss: R145,700.00 and future loss:
R4,889,600.00).
19.
Under cross-examination, when
asked what the difference between the reports of October 2022 and 3
May 2023 are, Mr Boshoff replied
that the differences were the dates
of calculation, that a conservative approach was adopted in the May
2023 reports and that the
conservative approach was in favour of the
defendant as the amounts were reduced.
20.
The
expert
reports of the plaintiff stand uncontested as the defendant did not
file its expert reports to dispute those of the plaintiff.
21.
I
accept the respective expert opinions as proven by the plaintiff.
22.
The plaintiff also filed reports
of Dr Sagor (orthopaedic surgeon) and Ms Bester (occupational
therapist). These reports were
not considered as no affidavits
were filed by the experts to confirm the contents of the report, nor
were the witnesses in Court
to testify.
PLAINTIFF
23.
The Plaintiff confirms his
employment history after the accident as reported by Dr Hunter and
further confirms that despite the
change of employers that the work
has remained the same. He further testified that he was always
accommodated by his employer
and had another person working with him.
He further stated that his employers are aware of his
challenges. He testified
that the vehicle which he uses at work
has been specially adapted to suit him. He testified that he is
assisted with both
heavy lifting and when he is required to make use
of his knees. He testified that the injury has affected his
knees in that
he is in constant pain and can feel the pain when
walking or standing for long periods of time. He testified that
the pain
is less once he is resting, but because he loves to work
that he cannot remain stationary and is used to working with his
hands.
He has to provide for his family and thus he has to
work.
24.
He testified that he has
considered better work prospects at other places but stated that he
is not sure whether he can work without
assistance. He confirmed in
cross-examination that when the accident occurred he was unemployed
and studying.
25.
The plaintiff
closed his case. The defendant also closed its case without
leading any evidence.
LOSS
OF EARNINGS:
26.
In
Rudman v Road Accident Fund
2003
(2) SA 234
(SCA),
the court emphasised that:
“…
where
a person’s capacity was compromised that incapacity constitutes
a loss, if such loss diminishes his estate and that
he was entitled
to be compensated to the extent that his patrimony was diminished.
”
27.
The legal
principle in respect of a claim for diminished earning capacity is
trite in that the plaintiff must be placed in the position
he would
have been in had the injuries not occurred. To succeed in the
claim for loss of income or earning capacity, the
plaintiff has to
establish on a balance of probability that as a result of the
accident, he has lost future earning capacity.
28.
“
Any
enquiry into damages for loss of earning capacity is to its nature
speculative, because it involves a prediction as to the future
without the benefit of crystal balls, soothsayers, augers or oracles.
All that the court can do is to make an estimate, which
is
often a very rough estimate of the present value of a loss
”.
[1]
29.
When making an order for future
losses, it is expected from the court to make use of contingency
deductions to provide for any future
circumstances which may occur
but which cannot be predicted with any amount of certainty.
30.
Our courts have accepted that the
extent of the period over which a plaintiff’s income has to be
established has a direct
influence on the extent to which
contingencies have to be accounted for. The longer the period
over which unforeseen contingencies
can have an influence over the
accuracy of the amount deemed to be the probable income of the
plaintiff, the higher the contingencies
have to be applied.
31.
Adv. Botha,
for the plaintiff, submitted in his closing arguments that the
plaintiff would have to retire early and that based on
the
conservative approach will retire at the age of 55 years. According
to the actuarial report which makes provision for
retirement at 55
years, the past loss of earnings amount R145,700.00 and future loss
of earnings amount to R4,889,600.00, thus
a total of R5,035,300.00
(this is the capital value including the RAF cap, after
contingencies.) Mr Botha held that the actuarial
evidence
stands uncontested.
32.
Mr Mogano, in
his closing argument, stated that there was no basis for the
plaintiff to be compensated in the amount of R5,035,300.00.
He
further submitted that the there was no evidence presented to show
that the plaintiff’s estate had diminished. According
to
the defendant, the plaintiff did not suffer any actual loss of
earnings.
33.
Dr Hunter’s reports indicate the
pre-morbid career path for the plaintiff to have been as a mechanic,
a chargehand during
2020/2021, a foreman (Paterson Job Grade C4)
approximately one to three years later and an engineering supervisor
(Paterson Job
Grade C5) after three to five years. For the
post-morbid career path, the report indicates that the Plaintiff will
indeed
progress to chargehand (Paterson Job Grade C3) and then
foreman (Paterson Job Grade C4) at which level he will retire and
thus
not become an engineer supervisor. It is thus clear that
his abilities have been negatively affected by the accident.
Furthermore
the actuary report also indicates that the
Plaintiff’s career and earnings would have progressed to
engineering supervisor
(Paterson C5) and that he would have retired
at 65 but for the accident. Dr Hunter testified that it would
be highly unlikely
for the plaintiff to meet all the inherent
requirements for the job of engineering supervisor. He also
testified that based
on his experience in the corporate sector, he
has seen many people with orthopaedic injuries retire earlier.
34.
The Plaintiff
has a grade 12 education, is a diesel mechanic and has been and still
is employed as a diesel mechanic since 2011.
At the time of the
accident the plaintiff was a student and as a result of the accident
could not complete his studies in 2009
as he was recuperating at home
for 6 months. The plaintiff resumed his studies in 2010. According
to Dr Hunter’s report,
“
it
is possible, had he not been injured he would have probably have
qualified as a diesel mechanic approximately 6 months earlier.
According to the reports the plaintiff’s condition will
progress to end stage osteoarthritis. The plaintiff has been
fortunate
enough to work as a diesel mechanic despite the daily pain,
as his employer is sympathetic to him and has allowed him to work
with
assistance”
.
35.
The plaintiff is qualified and
young and I accept that the probabilities are that he would have been
able to generate an income
until the so-called “normal”
retirement age of 65, had it not been for his injuries.
36.
Whilst
the defendant disputes that the plaintiff would have to retire early,
based on the reports before me and the condition which
the plaintiff
is in, he will in all probability be forced to retire earlier.
To this end I am of the view that the plaintiff
will retire at 55, 10
years earlier than the normal retirement age of 65 years.
37.
Having
considered the actuarial calculation in relation to retirement at 55
years, the amount is in my view, reasonable, fair and
just. The
plaintiff in respect of past loss of income is awarded R145,700.00
and for future loss of earnings is awarded R4,889,600.00,
totalling
an amount of R5,035,300.00.
38.
I am satisfied that the plaintiff
has shown that the injuries he sustained in the collision have caused
a loss of earning capacity
or will cause a loss of earnings in the
future, to the extent that he claims.
39.
Mr Boshoff
calculated the plaintiff’s past and future loss of earnings on
the assumptions and opinions contained in Dr Hunter’s
report
and the plaintiff’s payslips. He applied a contingency
deduction of 15% in the plaintiff’s future earnings
in an
uninjured scenario and 40% in respect of the plaintiff’s future
earnings in the injured scenario. The RAF Amendment
Cap was
applied after the apportionment. The amount for past and future
loss of earnings amounts to R5,035,300.00.
40.
I find no
reason to reject the version of the plaintiff as supported by the
various experts. I am satisfied that the plaintiff
has suffered
injuries that have negatively affected his future earning capacity.
In my view it would be justified in the
circumstances of this
case to award an amount for past and future earnings as calculated by
Mr Boshoff.
GENERAL
DAMAGES:
41.
In
the matter Legodi v Road Accident Fund
[2]
the court stated the following:
“
[50]
General damages include a person's physical integrity, pain and
suffering, emotional shock, disfigurement,
a reduced life expectancy,
and loss of life amenities
.”
42.
The plaintiff got injured at the
age of 19, which means he has experienced most of his adult life in
an injured state. As
a result of the collision, the plaintiff’s
right knee is in constant pain which is worsened by lifting heavy
objects and
spending prolonged periods on his feet. According
to the experts the plaintiff’s condition is going to worsen
over
time. The plaintiff will develop osteoarthritis of the
right knee in his mid-forties. The functionality of his right
knee will be compromised on a permanent basis. He is unable to
walk long distances and having played club rugby prior to
the
accident, it is reported that the plaintiff will not be able to
return to playing rugby. He will ultimately need to retire
earlier and as a result of the accident his competitiveness in the
open labour market has been comprised.
43.
An
award
for general damages “
must
be fair to both sides - it must give compensation to the plaintiff,
but must not pour out largesse from the horn of plenty
at the
defendants expense
”.
[3]
44.
Counsel
for the plaintiff and defendant referred me to several cases which I
found useful in determining what would be a fair to
both parties.
45.
The
first case which I was referred to is
Ndlovu
v Road Accident Fund
[4]
. This
case concerned a 38-year-old female storekeeper whose injuries
comprised compound fractures of both lower legs and
a fractured
ankle. She had sustained compound fractures of the left tibia
and fibula with a large lateral degloving soft
tissue injury. She
also sustained compound fractures of the right tibia and fibula, as
well as a fracture of the medial malleolus
of the left ankle. She
was hospitalised for three weeks, used a wheelchair for six weeks and
operated on crutches for many
weeks. She has been left with
painful and unsightly scars, has nightmares and faced the prospect of
further surgery and skin-grafts.
She endured pain in her legs
which led to further pain, tiredness and loss of concentration. All
of these led to anxiety
and depression. Proposed surgery was
only expected to improve her situation, but she could never be
restored to the position
in which she was prior to the accident. In
March 2015, the Court awarded this plaintiff an amount of R470,000.00
as compensation
for her general damages.
46.
The
second case I was referred to was Nel v The Road Accident
[5]
.
In that matter a 64 year old manager, who sustained closed
fractures of the right tibia and fibula, an amputated fifth
metacarpal and little finger, a degloving injury to the right foot,
leading to the amputation of the right big toe. He used
a
crutch in order to ambulate.
47.
Counsel for
the Plaintiff suggested that I award an amount of R950,000.00 for
general damages.
48.
Counsel
for the Defendant referred me to
Ndaba
v Road Accident Fund
[6]
, where
the Plaintiff,
who
was 42 years old at the time, was travelling with her youngest child,
a mere baby, when a collision occurred. The plaintiff’s
legs were trapped inside the vehicle and she had to pass her baby
through the window to onlookers while waiting to be freed from
the
mangled vehicle. This caused her much distress. Thereafter
she was admitted to the Frere Hospital with very little
recollection
of the accident. Upon admission the following injuries were
noted: A straddled pelvic fracture, a right femural
“midshaft”
fracture and a bladder injury (rupture) as a result of blunt
abdominal trauma. She also sustained
an injury to her right
shoulder and a dashboard left knee injury. The latter injury
she sustained as a result of being trapped
between the seats of the
taxi she travelled in. The court awarded here an amount of
R300,000.00 in respect of general damages.
49.
Mr Mogano
suggested that an amount of R400,000.00 be awarded for general
damages.
50.
The
injuries sustained by the plaintiff in the accident has rendered him
permanently not able to perform any other work other than
that of a
sedentary nature. This renders him permanently incapable of
fully performing work as a diesel mechanic
.
The plaintiff is young and the knee replacement may only be
considered in about 10 to 15 years. The mobility of the
plaintiff with all its consequences is permanently compromised.
It
is clear that he is accommodated by his employer.
51.
Considering
the injuries sustained by the plaintiff and the relevant case law an
amount of R600,000.00 is a fair and reasonable.
COSTS
52.
Lastly, it was submitted on
behalf of the defendant that the employment of two counsel was not
warranted in this case.
53.
It is trite that the award of
costs is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. Such
discretion must, of course,
be exercised judicially.
54.
The costs of two or more counsel
will be allowed only if a court specially orders this to be the case
failing which the costs of
only one advocate is awarded. Our
courts have in several decisions considered factors which are
relevant in deciding whether
it was reasonable to employ two
counsel. These factors include: the importance of the case,
whether the case involves complex
legal or factual issues, the
quantum of the claim and the volume of the evidence to be
represented.
55.
I am of the
view that the matter was of considerable importance to the plaintiff,
that the quantum is not a small amount and that
a considerable amount
of preparation was undertaken in regard to the volume of the expert
report. As a result I am of the
view that the employment of two
counsel was warranted.
56.
In the premise, the following
order is made:
1.
The Defendant shall make payment to the
Plaintiff in the sum of R5,635,300 which amount is computed as
follows:
1.1
Past and future loss of income:
R5,035,300.00
1.2
General
damages:
R 600,000.00
2.
Payment into the following bank account:
DSC
Attorneys
First
National Bank
Branch
code : 2[...]
Account
No : 6[...]
Interest on the aforesaid
amount at the prescribed rate within 14 days
of this order.
3.
The defendant is ordered to furnish the plaintiff with an undertaking
in terms of
s
17(4)(a)
of the
Road
Accident Fund Act, 1996
, for payment of 100% of the costs for the
future accommodation of the plaintiff in a hospital or nursing home,
or treatment of
or rendering of a service services or supply of goods
to him, arising from the injuries he sustained in the motor vehicle
collision
which occurred on 02 June 2009 and the sequelae thereof,
after such costs have been incurred and upon proof thereof.
3.
The defendant shall pay the plaintiff’s
taxed or agreed party and party costs on a High Court scale to date
of this order,
which shall include the reasonable qualifying,
preparation, reservation and appearance fees (where applicable) of
the following
expert witnesses:
4.1
Dr JS Sagor
Orthopaedic Surgeon
4.2
Michelle Bester
Occupational Therapist
4.3
Dr Richard Hunter
Industrial Psychologist
4.5
Mr W
Boshoff
Actuary
4.6
Ms L Howell
Occupational Therapist
4.7.
Morton and Partners
Radiologists
4.8.
Kingsbury Radiology
Radiologists
4.9.
Dr P Olivier
Orthopaedic Surgeon
5.
In the event that costs are not agreed:
5.1
The plaintiff shall serve a notice of taxation
on the defendant’s
attorney of record; and
5.2
The plaintiff shall allow the defendant (14) days
to make payment of
the taxed costs.
6.
The costs of the necessary witnesses of attending the trial, which
are:
6.1
Mr Van Niekerk (Plaintiff);
6.2
Dr Hunter
6.3.
Ms Howell
6.4.
Mr Boshoff
7.
The taxed or agreed costs of Plaintiff's counsel.
T
TYUTHUZA
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
NORTHERN
CAPE DIVISION
APPEARANCES:
On
behalf of the Plaintiff:
Adv
JJ Botha SC
Adv
S Botha
On
the instruction of:
DSC
Attorneys
On
behalf of the Defendant:
Mr
M Magano
On
the instruction of:
Office
of the State Attorney
[1]
Southern
Insurance Association Ltd v Bailey NO 1984(1) SA 98 AD
[2]
(50948/17)
[2021] ZAGPPHC 566 (2 September 2021)
[3]
Pitt
v Economic Insurance Company Ltd 1957 (3) SA 284 (D) 287 E-F
[4]
2015
(7E4) 18 (GSJ) (11 March 2015)
[5]
2017
(7E4) QOD 36 (GP)
[6]
(EL 321/08) [2011] ZAECELLC 6 (30 June 2011)