About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZALMPPHC 104
|
|
Xuma v Road Accident Fund (4314.2022) [2024] ZALMPPHC 104 (5 September 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
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH A
LIMPOPO DIVISION,
POLOKWANE
CASE NO:4314/2022
(1)
REPORTABLE:
YES
/NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES:
YES
/NO
(3)
REVISED
DATE: 5-09-2024
SIGNATURE:
In the matter between:
PHUMLANI
XUMA
PLAINTIFF
And
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND
DEFENDANT
JUDGEMENT
MASHAMBA AJ:
INTRODUCTION
[1]
The plaintiff, Phumlani Xuba, a male person, born on the 19
th
April 1992, has instituted an action against the Road Accident Fund
(“the defendant”) for damages resulting from personal
injuries sustained on the 03
rd
September 2020, at
Klasserie public road, Limpopo Province. The plaintiff was a driver
of a motor vehicle accident with registration
numbers and letters,
F[...] which vehicle lost control after being disturbed and caused to
overturned by another motor vehicle
with registration number and
letters which are unknown to the plaintiff.
[2]
The plaintiff was 28 years old when the accident occurred and
currently he is
32 years old, employed as a teacher.
[3]
On the 07
th
September 2023, the parties reached a
settlement agreement of 60/40 in favour of the plaintiff. On the 09
th
May 2024, the defendant formally through a correspondence letter
accepted the claim for general damages under 5.1 as the plaintiff
sustained severe injuries. The court will entertain the issues of
general damages in this matter.
ISSUE BEFORE THIS
COURT
[4]
The court is called to determine the plaintiff’s claim for
general damages, future medical expenses and past, future loss of
earnings. The plaintiff claimed an estimated amount of
R 14 000
000.00
calculated as follows;
5.1
Future Medical Expenses section
17 undertaking
4.2
Past and future Loss of Income
R
12 000 000.00
4.3
General Damages
R 2 000 000.00
[5]
The Future Medical Expenses claim will be substituted with an
undertaking
certificate in terms of
section 17
(4) (a)-(b) of the
Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996
, as amended. The summons against
the defendant was issued on the 09
th
May 2022, and served
by the sheriff on the 15
th
June 2022, at the defendant
principal place of business. The defendant did not
enter his appearance to defend.
[6]
The plaintiff proceeded with this matter on the absence of the
defendant,
the plaintiff used the experts’ medical reports to
substantiate his claim. The plaintiff relied on the
following
expert reports;
8.1 Dr
SM Khanyile (Orthopaedic Surgeon)
8.2 Dr
Mkhonza (Neurosurgeon)
8.3 Dr
Divaris (Radiologist report)
8.4
Thembelani Lephoto (Clinical Psychologist)
8.5
Masana Tshitamba (Occupational Therapist)
8.6 NJ
Mabote (Occupational Therapist)
8.7
Oscar Sechudi (Industrial Psychologist)
8.8
One Pangaea (Actuaries)
[7]
The plaintiff made his submissions based on the conclusions of the
medical experts’
reports duly filed before this court. The
court evaluated the probabilities of all experts’ opinion as
per their respective
reports. The court considered the case of
Prince
v Road Accident Fund
[1]
,
where the court held at paragraphs 55, 56 and 59 in the evaluation of
the probabilities in respect of expert evidence.
“
Sufficient
proof is established when an inference can be drawn about the fact in
issue, providing that the inference is consistent
with all the proven
facts. In civil matters, it suffices if the inference is the most
probable inference. Further, once prima facie
proof or evidence has
been provided, that is proof calling for an answer. This becomes
conclusive proof on the point in issue usually
if no evidence is
produced to rebut it. The fact of the matter is, however, that the
Court must at the end of the case reviews
all the evidence and
evaluate this according to the applicable primary criterion. It must
be accepted, of course, that where, for
example, a Defendant fails to
produce evidence, this does not mean necessarily that the opponent’s
version in the case, falls
to be accepted. The acceptance of
Plaintiff’s case depends on the probative strength of
Plaintiff’s case, being whether
it is sufficient to cast, an
evidential burden on the Defendant to present evidence.”
PLAINTIFF’S
INJURIES AND EVIDENCE
[8]
The medical records from Tintswalo Hospital show that the plaintiff
had the following
injuries; cervical spine injury, Skull Injury and
mandibular bilateral fracture. The plaintiff was transported to
Tintswalo Hospital
by an ambulance and was then transferred to Rob
Ferreira Hospital. The plaintiff was admitted on the 03 September
2020 and discharged
on the 08 October 2020. The medical records
indicate that the GCS was 3/15 on admission and it was noted that the
plaintiff was
intoxicated. The medical records are not complete, the
plaintiff filled few medical records from Titswalo Hospital and a
discharge
form from Rob Ferreira Hospital.
[9]
Dr S.M KHANYILE (Orthpaedic surgeon), examined the plaintiff on the
24
th
February 2022, and recorded injuries sustained; as
cervical spine injury, neck injury, and skull injury. The plaintiff
reported
that he loses focus and persistent neck pain. The plaintiff
received the following treatment; emergency treatment, clinical and
radiological examination and analgesia. The plaintiff further
attended rehabilitation as an outpatient at Rob Ferreira Hospital.
The plaintiff was referred to Dr S Divaris Radiologist on the 25
th
February 2022. The X-ray show the old healed fractures involving the
symphysis mentis and the left aspect of the mandible. The
levoscoliosis is present. No orthopaedic surgery is expected. The WPI
was calculated at 8 %. Dr Khanyile qualifies the plaintiff
with
narrative test RAF 4.
5.1 serious long-term impairment or loss of
a body function.
[10]
Dr M.F Mkhonza, (Neurologist) examined the plaintiff on the 11
th
November 2022. Dr Mkhonza, reported that the plaintiff lost
consciousness during the accident, woke up at Rob Ferreira Hospital
after 7 days. The Plaintiff sustained head injury and mandibular
fracture. The plaintiff was clinically examined, intubated and
ventilated, open reduction and internal fixation of the mandible,
physical rehabilitation and analgesia. The plaintiff reported
that he
has a weak left side of his body, lack of concentration and
forgetful, personality changes and decrease hearing with the
left
ear. Dr Mkhonza concluded that the plaintiff sustained a severe
traumatic brain injury (initial Glasgow coma scale of 3/15;
improved
6/15; intubated, he also had left hemiplegia). The plaintiff has 17.2
% chances of epilepsy. The calculated WPI is 35%.
[11]
T. F Lephoto, the clinical psychologist (hereinafter referred as “the
clinical’’)
examined the plaintiff on the 24
th
February 2022, who concluded that the plaintiff’s current
neuro-cognitive test results revealed the following;
1.
Attention and concertation: according to
his performance, the results suggested that his attention and
concentration to be inadequate,
within the low average and below
average range.
2.
Memory: The results were suggestive of
inadequate visual memory, and inadequate auditory and working memory
within the low average
and below average range.
3.
Processing speed: the plaintiff processing
speed was found to be inadequate.
4.
Visio-spatial and constructional abilities:
the plaintiff performance ranked between the average and low average
range.
5.
Verbal and abstract reasoning: the
plaintiff performance ranked in the average and low average range.
6.
Executive functioning: the plaintiff
performance suggests mildly impaired executive planning abilities and
fell within the low average
range.
[12]
The clinical opined that based on the plaintiff overall test profile,
the results suggest average
to moderately impaired neurocognitive
abilities. The clinical opined that the plaintiff may have suffered a
severe head injury
which resulted in significant neurocognitive
deficits. The plaintiff presents with symptoms of a mood disorder
which is classified
as Mild Depression Disorder. The plaintiff would
benefit significantly from psychotherapeutic intervention to deal
with his current
presentation of depressive symptomatology. With the
aid of a clinical psychologist, the plaintiff may be able to find a
meaning
to life and not dwell on the negative.
[13]
M Tshitamba, (occupational therapist) examined the plaintiff on the
24
th
February 2022. The occupational therapist indicated
that the plaintiff occupation as an educator requires occasional
walking, elevated
work, lifting and carrying and that the plaintiff
is presenting with left side hemiparesis (weakness) and decreased
endurance as
noted during the assessment. The occupational therapist
opines that the plaintiff limitation and pain has compromised his
ability
to function at the same level as his uninjured co-workers,
even in a situation with the physical demand category matching his
physical
abilities. The plaintiff is thus considered a vulnerable
competitor in the open labour market compared to his non-injured
counterparts.
THE PLAINTIFF LOSS OF
EARNINGS
[14]
O. O, Sechudi, the Industrial Psychologist (hereinafter referred as
the IP), examined
the plaintiff on the 22
nd
August 2023,
noted that the plaintiff matriculated in 2011, thereafter, obtained
tertiary level qualifications. The plaintiff obtained
Bachelors in
Education in 2015. and further obtained Honours in Bachelors of
education in 2016. The plaintiff registered for 2
(two) year Masters
in Public Management in 2019 and discontinued with his studies as a
result of the injuries sustained in
the accident. The plaintiff
is employed as a teacher at Sekhukhune Secondary School.
[15]
The IP noted the paysheets which has indicated that the plaintiff’s
gross monthly
salary is R 26 893.82. The salary scales for
government employees. Therefore, the industrial psychologist opined
that the
plaintiff ‘s earnings are in line with those of a
teacher (grade 12 plus 4 years tertiary) with the earnings ranging
between
the R 280 038 to 621 906 per year.
[16]
Pre-accident Potential;
The IP, opined that the plaintiff
would have likely continued working within the same line of work
while pursuing opportunity for
career advancement. The plaintiff
would have eventually secured a job as a school principal and his
income would have increased
in a straight-line with his earnings
likely reaching those of a school principal ranging from 348 747
to R 1 050 657
per year (Koch 2020). The plaintiff would
have reached career ceiling by the age of 45 years. From the age of
46 years, the plaintiff
career activities would have stabilised as he
focused on maintaining his source of income. Therefore, the plaintiff
would have
earned additional inflationary increases until retirement
age. Therefore, the plaintiff would have possibly retired at the age
of 65 as per employer’s policy and with health permitting.
[17]
Post-accident Potential;
The IP noted that the plaintiff was
on incapacity leave from the date of accident until the present date.
The IP further called
the plaintiff on the 02
nd
August
2023, the plaintiff indicated that he has yet resumed his duties. The
IP indicated that the plaintiff post-accident potential
has likely
been adversely affected. The plaintiff may suffer job loss due to his
inability to report for duty while experiencing
multiple challenges.
In the event he suffers job loss, he would likely be medically
boarded which would possibly preclude him from
participating in the
labour market in future. In the event the plaintiff may find himself
unemployed, he would possibly remain
unemployed for the rest of his
life.
PLAINTIFF’S
SUBMISSIONS
[18]
The plaintiff submitted that as a result of the accident he
discontinued with his
Masters degree. The plaintiff’s counsel
further argued that the plaintiff is unfit to do the current job as a
teacher because
since the plaintiff resumed his duties, he received
two verbal warning as a result of failure to accomplish his duties.
The Counsel
submitted that the plaintiff returned to work to avoid
being declared medical boarded in terms of the employer’s
policy.
The Counsel further submitted that although the plaintiff
resumed his duties as a teacher, he has done so at the mercy of the
employer.
[19]
The Counsel further submitted that the plaintiff is remunerated for
the work he is
not doing and in accordance with the principles
established in
Fulton
v Road Accident Fund
,
[2]
the remuneration is being granted ex gratia and it is not to be taken
into consideration for purposes of the plaintiff’s
loss of
earnings. The counsel submitted that the same principles of
Fulton
case should be followed in this case.
[20]
The plaintiff submitted that a contingency of 5 % on past loss of
income and contingencies
of 15% on pre-morbid and 25 % on post-morbid
would be fair and reasonable given his age and the fact that he is
more than likely
to remain unemployed if medically boarded. The
plaintiff further submitted that the calculation by the Actuary
represent a fair
and reasonable amount of compensation. The plaintiff
referred the court to the Koch, in Quantum Year Book 2020, where the
following
guideline regarding contingencies has been indicated;
Normal contingencies: as deductions
of 5% for past loss and 15% for future loss; Sliding scale: ½
% per year to retirement age, i.e. 25% for a child, 20% for
a youth
and 10% in the middle age and relies on
Goodall
v President Insurance
[3]
.
[21]
The plaintiff appointed One
Pangaea Actuaries
to calculate the
plaintiff’s past and future loss of income based on the
postulations made by the Industrial Psychologist.
The contingencies
of 5 % past loss, 15 % pre-morbid and 25 % post morbid was applied.
Pre-accident
(R)
Post-accident
(R)
Loss
(R)
Past
income
1 373
750
1 193
979
Past
contingencies 5%
Net
past income
(68,688)
1
305,062
(59
699)
1
134 280
R 170
782
Future
income
15
448 181
721
351
Future
contingencies
15%
premorbid & 25% postmorbid
(2
317 227)
(180
338)
Net
future Income
13
130 954
541
013
12
589 941
Total
Loss
12
760 723
Impact
of cap
(2
061 454)
Net
Loss
10
699 269
COURT’S FINDINGS
ON ISSUES OF THE PLAINTIFF’S LOSS OF EARNINGS
[22]
This leads me to the issues of the order for the future loss of
earning capacity
and contingencies to be applied. In this regard I am
also guided by
Mngomezulu
v RAF
[4]
,
Kgomo J argued that:
"[84]
For the Plaintiff
to
succeed
in
a
claim
for loss of
earnings,
he
is
required
to
provide
a
factual
basis for an actuarial calculation. This
is
a
process designed
to
assess
actuarial / mathematical
calculations
on
the
basis of the evidence as well
as
over-all assumptions vesting or
depending
on
such
evidence. This approach is known as the actuarial approach.
[85]
The actuarial approach seeks
to
determine the loss of earnings
as
realistically
as
possible
to
what may be the Plaintiff's actual
losses.
The
approach comprises
of
(a)
providing a factual
basis
upon
which the
loss
of
earning
is
to
be calculated and only then (b) by applying appropriate contingency
deductions."
[23]
When deciding issues of past and future loss of earnings, this court
has considered
a decision in
Southern
Insurance Association Ltd v Bailey NO
[5]
Nicholas
JA stated as follows:
“
Where
the method of actuarial computation is adopted, it does not mean that
the trial Judge is "tied down by inexorable actuarial
calculations". He has "a large discretion to award what he
considers right" ……… One of
the elements in
exercising that discretion is the making of a discount for
"contingencies" or the "vicissitudes
of life".
These include such matters as the possibility that the Plaintiff
may in the result have less than a "normal"
expectation
of life; and that he may experience periods of unemployment by
reason of incapacity due to illness or accident,
or to labour
unrest or general economic conditions. The amount of any discount
may vary, depending upon the circumstances
of the case.”
[24]
The plaintiff informed medical experts that he discontinued with his
Masters
degree as a result of the accident and the court requested
the proof of Master’s degree registration. The plaintiff
provided
a letter and academic record which indicated that the
plaintiff did not discontinue with his Master’s degree after
accident,
instead, he completed on the 04
th
October 2023
and graduated on the 06
th
December 2023. The court
requested the plaintiff to do Addendum report of the Industrial
Psychologist in consideration of the completed
Masters degree and
that the plaintiff has resumed with his employment as a teacher. The
court further requested that the actuaries
must recalculate the
plaintiff loss of earnings in consideration of the new information.
The plaintiff was
requested to furnish the addendum reports on or before the 30
th
August 2024.
[25]
The industrial psychologist prepared an addendum report, which has
considered
that the plaintiff has completed his Master’s degree
in Business Management. The Industrial Psychologist reported that the
plaintiff was contacted on the 21 August 2024, the plaintiff
mentioned that he was assigned to lighter duties as an administrative
assistant as a result of the injuries. The Industrial Psychologist
did not confirm the plaintiff’s current challenges with
the
employer but only relied from the plaintiff’s reported
information. The opinion made from the Industrial Psychologist
first
report did not change as a result of the new information. No
collateral information was provided to prove that the plaintiff
is
unable to do his current duties as a teacher and that he was put in
lighter duties.
[26]
The court noted that the plaintiff reduction of his capacity but
still employed
by the same employer. This court has highlighted the
above as will change the method used by the actuaries to calculate
the plaintiff’s
loss of past and future earnings. The court
noted that there is no past loss of earnings since the plaintiff has
received his income
during recuperation period.
[27]
The plaintiff had an opportunity to supplement his evidence through
addendum
report but such opportunity has not been entirely utilised
because the Industrial Psychologist failed to confirm the plaintiff’s
current occupational challenges with the School Principal since the
plaintiff has returned to work since January 2024. The Industrial
Psychologist report did not confirm the submissions made by the
plaintiff’s counsel when he indicated that the plaintiff
received verbal warning from the principal as a result of his
misconduct. No evidence was put before this court to prove that the
plaintiff is not coping with the current duties as a teacher since
his return in January 2024. No evidence from the employer to
confirm
that the plaintiff is working on his sympathy.
[28]
The court has considered that the plaintiff is a government employee
and the
risk of dismissal is not equal as in private sector and that
even if the plaintiff may be dismissed as a result of the injuries,
he will be compensated in terms of the government employment policy.
The plaintiff is not going to have a total loss of his future
earnings. The method used in the above actuarial calculation did not
consider the government policies in a situation where the
employee
may lose employment as a result of medical incapacity.
[29]
The court finds that the plaintiff should be compensated by an
application
of spread of 35% as a future loss of his earning,
calculated as follows;
LOSS
PRE-ACCIDENT
POST-ACCIDENT
FUTURE
INCOME
R 15
448 181
R 15
448 181
SPREAD
OF 35%
15%
50%
R 2
317 227
R 7
724 090
R 13
130 954
R 7
724 090
R 5
406 863
[30]
In the circumstances, I find that the appropriate amount to be
awarded to the plaintiff
in respect of the future loss of earnings
capacity is in the sum of
R 5 406 863
, minus
40 %
apportionment
to be applied. The amount of
R 3 244 118
to be awarded to the plaintiff for his future loss of earnings.
GENERAL DAMAGES:
[31]
The defendant has sent a correspondence letter on the 09
th
May 2024, they acknowledged that the plaintiff sustained serious
injuries and accepted that the plaintiff qualifies for the
compensation
for general damages. This court should proceed to deal
with the issues of general damages
[32]
Moseneke DCJ in
Van
der Merwe v Road Accident Fund and Another
[6]
stated
that,
“
non-patrimonial
damages, which also bear the name of general damages, are utilized to
redress the deterioration of a highly personal
legal interests that
attach to the body and personality of the claimant. However,
ordinarily the breach of a personal legal interest
does not reduce
the individual’s estate and does not have a readily
determinable or direct monetary value. Therefore, general
damages
are, so to speak, illiquid and are not instantly sounding in money.
They are not susceptible to exact or immediate calculation
in
monetary terms. In other words, there is no real relationship between
the money and the loss
.
In bodily injury claims, well-established variants of general damages
include “pain and suffering”, “disfigurement”,
and “loss of amenities of life.”
[33]
Sandler
v Wholesale Coal Supplie
s
Ltd
[7]
where the court held
that;
“
The
amount to be awarded as compensation can only be determined by the
broadest general considerations and the figure arrived at
must
necessarily be uncertain, depending upon the judge’s view of
what is fair in all the circumstances of the case”.
[34]
The plaintiff referred the court in the unreported case of
Kruger
v Road Accident Fund
[8]
,
the
plaintiff suffered a skull fracture which resulted in a moderate to
severe traumatic brain injury resulting in deficits in his
neuropsychiatric, neuro-behavioral and neuro-psychological
functions. He also suffered injuries to his cervical and lumber
spine. Kruger experienced drastic personality changes as he was
aggressive and anti-social. The court awarded R 1 400 000.00
for general damages, which is equivalent to R 1 474 000.00.
[35]
The plaintiff further referred
to the case of Nsele v Road Accident Fund
[9]
a thirty-four (34) years old male was involved, as a pedestrian, in a
motor vehicle accident. Nsele suffered a moderate to severe
traumatic
brain injury that diffuse in nature. Nsele also suffered a femur
fracture and several lacerations on his legs and facial
area and he
was awarded an amount of R 1 100 000.00 for general damages
which translates to R 1 143 000.00
in 2024.
[36]
The plaintiff further referred the Court to the matter of
Torres
v Road Accident Fund
[10]
the plaintiff was awarded an amount of R 600 000 in general
damages in circumstances where the plaintiff sustained a head
injury
with sequelae of post-traumatic stress disorder and headaches. The
amount translates to a figure of R 1 538 000.00
in
2023 as per Koch.
[37]
The Plaintiff submitted that
the amount of
R 1 400 000.00
is fair and reasonable to compensate the Plaintiff.
[38]
The Court in deciding a fair
compensation for general damages, has considered the plaintiff’s
injuries as discussed in the
above respective experts’ medical
reports and guided by the case laws referred above by the plaintiff.
The court finds that
the amount of
R
1 300 000.00
is reasonable to
compensate the plaintiff. After consideration of 40 % apportionment
the plaintiff is awarded the amount of
R
780 000.00
for general damages.
[39]
The Court shall not deviate from the general rule that the cost shall
follow the
successful party.
ORDER
[40]
In the circumstances, the following is the Order of this Court:
1. The defendant is
held liable to compensate the plaintiff 60% for his proven damages
arising out of a motor vehicle collision
that occurred on the 03
September 2020.
2. The defendant shall
pay the plaintiff the sum of
R 3 244 118
(Three Million,
Two Hundred and Forty-Four Thousand, One Hundred and Eighteen Rands)
in respect of the future loss of earnings.
3. The defendant shall
pay the amount of
R 780 000,00
(Seven hundred and Eighty
Thousand Rands) in respect of the general damages.
4. The defendant shall
furnish the plaintiff with an undertaking in terms of
section 17
(4)
(a) of Act 56 of 1996, wherein the defendant undertakes to pay 60% of
the costs resulting from the motor vehicle accident which
occurred on
the 03 September 2020. The defendant shall furnish the abovementioned
undertaking within 30 days from the date of receipt
of this court
order.
5.
The
Amount in paragraph 2 and 3 above shall be paid into following Bank
Accounts;
NAME
OF BANK: STANDARD BANK
ACCOUNT
HOLDER: TK MACHITELE ATTORNEYS
TYPE
OF ACCOUNT: TRUST CHEQUE ACCOUNT
ACCOUNT
NO: 0[…]
BRANCH
CODE: 051001
REF
NO: TKM/MVA110/2021
6.
The defendant shall be liable to pay interest on the aforesaid
amount’s
tempore morae
at the rate of 7% per annum from
180 days after the date of this order to date of the payment
.
7.
The
defendant shall pay the plaintiff ‘s taxed or agreed party and
party costs until the date of this order including costs
of a counsel
scale B.
8.
The costs consequently in the
preparation of and obtaining the medico legal and actuary reports
that were served on or provided
to the defendant.
9.
The reasonable taxable preparation, qualifying
and reservation fees, if any of the plaintiff’s experts for
trial of whom notice
was given to the defendant.
10.
The reasonable taxable costs of necessary consultations with the said
experts and the reasonable
taxable traveling, subsistence and
accommodation costs of the plaintiff for attending the medico legal
examination, subject to
the discretion of the taxing master.
11.
The reasonable taxable costs of traveling, subsistence, accommodation
costs of the plaintiff
for attending court.
12.
The defendant shall be liable to pay interest on the amount of the
Plaintiff’s costs
of suit, as taxed or agreed, at 7 % per annum
from 14 (fourteen days) of the allocatur of the taxing master or the
date of the
agreement, whichever applies, to date of payment.
E MASHAMBA
ACTING JUDGE OF THE
HIGH COURT,
POLOKWANE; LIMPOPO
DIVISION
APPEARANCES
FOR THE
PLAINTIFF
: ADV DD MOSONA
INSTRUCTED
BY
: TK MACHITELE ATTORNEYS
EMAIL
:
info@tkmachiteleattorneys.co.za
/
adv.mosoma@gmail.com
FOR THE
DEFENDANT
: NO APPEARANCE
INSTRUCTED BY:
DATE OF
HEARING
: 24
th
June 2024
DATE
OF JUDGEMENT
: 05 September 2024
[1]
(CA
143/2017)
[2018]
ZAECGHC 20
(
20
March 2018). Par 55, 56 & 59
[2]
2007/31280
(2012) ZAGPJHC 3; 2012 (3) SA 255 (GSJ)
[3]
1978
(1) SA 389
[4]
(Case
No. 04643/2010)
[2011]
ZAGPJHC 107 (8 September2011)
[5]
1984
(1) SA 98
,
par 116-117
[6]
(CCT48/05)
[2006] ZACC 4
[7]
1941
AD 194
at 199
[8]
(27383/2009)
[2022] ZAGPPHC 73 (14 February 2022)
[9]
(70447/2019)
[2021] ZAGPPHC 455 (13 July 2021)
[10]
2007
(6) QOD A4-1 (GCS)