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
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAFSHC 221
|
|
Louw N.O obo O.O v Road Accident Fund (304/2019) [2024] ZAFSHC 221 (4 June 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,
FREE STATE DIVISION,
BLOEMFONTEIN
Case
Number:
304/2019
REPORTABLE: NO
OF INTEREST TO
OTHER JUDGES: NO
REVISED: NO
In the matter between:
ADV
LOUW N.O. obo O. O[…]
Plaintiff
and
ROAD
ACCIDENT FUND
Defendant
HEARD
ON
:
7, 8 &
10
November 2023
CORAM
:
JORDAAN, AJ
DELIVERED
ON
:
04
June 2024
[1] On the 24
th
of May 2018 at Namibia gravel road, Mangaung, Bloemfontein a motor
vehicle with unknown registration numbers and letters (the insured
vehicle) driven by an unknown driver (the insured driver) collided
with O[...] O[...] (hereinafter refered to as the minor) who
was a
pedestrian at the time.
[2] As a consequence,
action was instituted in terms of the provisions of the Road Accident
Fund Act56 of 1996, as amended, for
compensation in terms of the
amended particulars of claim computed at R 8 010 205.00 for the
following heads of damages:
2.1
Past Medical Expenses R5 000.00
2.2 Future Medical
Expenses R1 000 000.00
2.3 Estimated Loss of
Income R5 505 205.00
2.4 General Damages R1
500 000.00
2.5 Total Compensation R8
010 2015
2.6 Costs of suit
[3] Adv MC Louw was
appointed as
curator ad litem
on behalf of the minor pursuant
an Order by Daffue J, dated the 31
st
of March 2022.
[4] The merits and future
medical expenses was settled in terms of an Order of Court by Van
Rhyn J dated the 18
th
of April 2023.
[5] At commencement of
the trial, the parties addressed court that the Plaintiff’s
expert reports were accepted, except for
the report of the
Educational Psychologist.
[6] The Plaintiff no
longer pursued their claim for Past Medical Expenses. The only heads
of damages for determination by this court
was the General Damages
and the Estimated Loss of Earnings, properly construed- Estimated
Loss of Earning Capacity.
[7] In establishing that
as a consequence of the accident the minor sustained injuries and the
sequelae of same, the Plaintiff presented
the following expert
evidence through the reports admitted by the Defence:
Dr
Oelofse
, the orthopaedic surgeon,
reports that x-rays of the cervical spine, chest, pelvis and right
femur were taken and computed tomography
(CT) scans of the minor’s
brain and abdomen were done. Dr Oelofse notes that that the minors
sustained a right shoulder dislocation
and the CT scan revealed a
fracture of the right iliac wing extending to the S1 vertebra. The
minor experienced acute pain in his
right shoulder, chest, abdomen,
pelvis and left lower leg for approximately 4 weeks after the
accident, which subsided to a moderate
pain for a further 3 weeks.
The minor experiences continuous pain in the pelvis, which is
exasperated during winter and he struggles
to perform physical
activities. This injury had impact on his productivity, and amenities
of life, he will do better following
successful treatment. Dr Oelofse
diagnosed the minor with united pelvis fracture with residual pain
and recommended physiotherapy.
Dr
Mutyuba
,
the neurosurgeon, reports that the minor suffered traumatic brain
injury (TBI) or concussion in the accident on the 24
th
of May 2018. This is evidenced by the period of alteration in level
of consciousness (ALOC) and the soft tissue facial scalp injury
indicative of acceleration/deceleration forces applied to the
cranium.
[1]
His current
complaints is comprised of headaches, change in behaviour, poor
school performance and anxiety symptoms can be classified
a post-
concussion syndrome.
[2]
These
complaints are manifestations of neurocognitive/neuropsychological
changes. A deterioration in the academic performance after
the
accident is reported. In his addendum report Dr Mutyuba diagnosed
mild to moderate TBI.
Claire
Hearne
,
clinical psychologist, notes that on the physical aspects the minor
will have pain, headaches, discomfort, lifestyle affected
and unable
to master the challenges of daily life because of the injuries
sustained in the accident and consequences of the accident.
From
a cognitive perspective the minor is performing between low and high
average ranges. There is an impact on motivation on all
levels of
daily living. Because of the injuries sustained in the accident it is
difficult for the minor to sustain memory and work
on complex tasks,
hence his ability to achieve what he would have been able to but for
the accident is impacted and he therefore
will need remedial
support.
[3]
The minor has
undergone psychological deterioration since the accident in learning
and development, concentration, attention, motivation
and work pace.
The trauma led to feelings of ineffectiveness, feelings of shame and
humiliation which will lead to social withdrawal.
He is at risk of
falling out of the education system completely. His behaviour
strongly points to attention deficit. The minor
has a high mark on
the depression scale which puts him at risk of suicide or self-harm.
The minor would benefit from learning support
and may have limited
employment opportunities.
Anel
Booyse
, occupational therapist, report
that the minor present with several physical limitations., he has
moderate depression, anxiety
and anger. The minor was impacted by the
injuries sustained and will continue to do so, he will need training
by an occupational
therapist in social skills with peer and family
relationships. Without training, his career options will be limited.
The minor
complains of headaches and hip pains more than 5years after
accident. The minor will need assistive devices going forward.
Dr
Anel Strydom
, industrial psychologist,
reports having regard to the expert reports, pre-morbid the minor
would have completed Grade 12 and a
two to three-year certificate of
some sort and would have earned B2/3 median and with straight-line
increases he would have progressed
to a C1/2 median as his career
ceiling in his mid-forties. As a result of the accident, the minor
needs special education, learning
support and psychotherapy to be
able to complete his vocational training to a Grade 9 level. He would
probable secure employment
in a non-corporate labour market. His
earning would range between the lower quartile and median of
unskilled workers earnings,
as his earnings would always depend on
the type and hours of work, he is able to secure at any given time.
He is seen to suffer
long periods of unemployment between jobs, as he
must compete with better qualified job seekers.
The
minor is regarded as a vulnerable scholar and future candidate in the
open labour market from a physical cognitive and psychological
perspective. The miner requires treatment and intervention to perform
at the required standard. As it is uncertain when he would
receive
the treatment, he should develop certain behavioral sequela. A
substantially higher post morbid contingency deduction is
suggested
to accommodate the possibility that he may even be left unemployable
from his mid 30s purely because of the neuropsychological
sequela.
The minor’s continued employment is not guaranteed at all in
the open labour market.
[8] Ms Lida Roos, the
educational psychologist, testified that the tests she conducted on
the minor showed a decline in the minor’s
cognitive functioning
from the test results obtained four years ago. The dramatic
scattering between the verbal and non-verbal
functioning of the minor
indicates that the minor has a learning disability which is
entrenched, making him a candidate for special
school. The minor
needs remedial education, learning support psychotherapy to complete
matric. He is practically inclined and as
result will struggle to
find employment with his orthopeadic injuries. It was her evidence
that post morbidly the minor will only
be able to obtain NQF1, while
his average potential indicates a matric with NQF6. During cross
examination she was confronted that
that her initial report indicate
that considering the minor’s family and learning environment it
is possible that his learning
problems are reflective of his
pre-morbid functioning, which she justified as the diagnosis of the
brain injury changed this position,
however in her initial report on
page 92 of the same report line 1066 he reports the minor sustained a
mild head injury in the
accident thus she was aware of the brain
injury at that time.
[9] It is true that that
Ms Lida Roos’ evidence disclosed intra contradictions and calls
into question on what she based her
opinion that the minor will not
be able to achieve his pre-morbid educational potential, having
regard to her contradictions. The
witness’ evidence that the
minor’s educational potential has been negatively affected
post-morbid, was arrived at after
a battery of tests were done which
were not all done in her first report and importantly her evidence is
externally corroborated
by Dr Mutyuba in that he concurs with her
findings with regard to the minors inability to perform post-morbidly
according to his
educational potential as these are manifestations of
neurocognitive and neuropsychological deficits of traumatic brain
injury.
Ms Roos was indeed obtuse in not answering that Ms Hearne
indicate inattention and attention deficit in her report, but she
cannot
be faulted for stating that ADD was not diagnosed, as it was
indeed not diagnosed by any of the experts. In the circumstances this
court finds that Ms Roos’ opinion is founded on logical
reasoning and accept her opinion, with the caveat that the court
accept the school report marking system as it was adapted to fit
outcomes-based grading and was further adjusted during Covid-19.
It
must be borne in mind that the evidence indicated that the minor is
now being assisted with his schoolwork by a private tutor.
Thus the
evidence indicates the assistance and support, though possibly not to
the full extent, is already present.
[10]
It
is trite that to succeed in a delictual claim, a claimant would have
to prove the following requirements: causation, wrongfulness,
fault
and harm. A successful delictual claim entails the proof of a causal
link between a defendant's actions or omissions, on
the one hand, and
the harm suffered by the plaintiff, on the other hand. This is in
accordance with the 'but-for' test.
[4]
Legal causation must be established on a balance of probabilities.
There can be no liability if it is not proved, on a balance
of
probabilities, that the conduct of the defendant caused the harm.
[5]
[11]
The
merits was settled, RAF hereby thus admitted liability that the
collision occurred as a result of the sole negligence of the
insured
driver. In terms of the case of Minister van Polisie v Ewels
[6]
wrongfulness in RAF cases is inferred from the fact that the insured
driver negligently caused the accident.
[12]
Whether the plaintiff sustained injuries in the undisputed
collision, is found in the undisputed expert reports that explain the
direct injuries which were sustained by the minor as recorded in
their reports as:
1. Mild-moderate
Traumatic Brain Injury
2. Fracture of the Right
Iliac Wing extending to the S1 Vertebrae
3. Free Fluid in the Left
Upper Quadrant
4. Right Shoulder
Dislocation
5. Multiple Abrasions and
Haematoma to the Left side of the face
6. Swelling of the Left
Scalp with Abrasions and Swelling nasal bridge
7. Multiple Abrasions to
the Lower Legs
8. Chest Injury
9. United Pelvis Fracture
with residual pain
10. Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder
11. Post Traumatic
Headaches
12. Mild to moderate
Persistent Depressive Disorder
[13]
Dr Oelofse, the orthopeadic surgeon, noted that the injuries
sustained orthopaedically in the accident has left the minor with
continuous pelvic pain, which is exasperated during cold weather
conditions and he noted that minor walks with a slight limp. The
minor’s injuries impacted his productivity and amenities of
life. In the RAF4 FORM, Dr Oelofse determined the minor suffered
WPI
of 37%, while Dr Mutyuba on the narrative test classified the minors
as qualifying for general damages as Serious log-term
mental or
severe long-term behavioural disturbances or disorder.
[14]
Mr. Mutyaba, the neurosurgeon, diagnosed that the minor suffered mild
to moderate traumatic brain injury and the soft tissue
facial/scalp
injury is indicative of acceleration/deceleration forces applied to
the cranium. The minor currently still suffer
from headaches, change
in behaviour, poor school performance, anxiety which is classified as
post-concussion syndrome. These neurocognitive
and neuropsychological
fallouts are manifestations of traumatic brain injury.
[15]
All the undisputed expert reports confirmed that the sequelae
outlined in their respective reports are due to the injuries
sustained by the minor as a result of the collision.
[16]
The cardinal principle in making an award for general damages is that
the court has a wide discretion to award what the judge
, in the
circumstances considers to be fair and adequate compensation to the
injured party for the sequelae to the injuries.
[7]
[17]
General damages is often determined by comparing cases under scrutiny
and those previously decided, it is generally accepted
that
previously decided cases are never similar and that their purpose
stops at comparing them to the current. This court was refered
to
comparable cases of which the court found the April case comparable:
April
obo a minor v Road Accident Fund [2021] LNQD 32 (GJ)
the
plaintiff was an 8year old , who suffered serious injuries which
included a closed head injury and facial abrasions, loss of
consciousness, neck pain, right distal radius and ulna fracture and
injury of the right ulna nerve, left clavicle fracture, a pelvis
fracture and multiple abrasions. The sequelae include a decrease in
cognitive functioning, general concentration ability and a
decrease
in reading ability. The Educational psychologist suggested placement
in a special needs school. The minor suffered from
chronic daily
headache and loss of use of the dominant right arm due to ulna nerve
injury with residual pain, post-traumatic stress
and major depressive
disorder. The plaintiff was awarded an amount of R500 000.00 for
general damages on 29 September 2021.
[18]
The Defendant suggested R600 000.00 to be a fair and reasonable
award, while the Plaintiff submitted that R1 400 000.00 to
be a fair
award.
[19]
In casu
the minor
suffered orthopeadic injuries coupled with a mild to moderate
Traumatic Brain Injury with neuro-cognitive and neuro-psychological
fallouts which have a significant impact on his activities of daily
living and on his education. I have dealt with these issues
supra
.
[20] I therefore consider
and amount of R700,000 to be fair and adequate compensation to the
plaintiff in respect of his general
damages.
[21] The minor’s
Estimated Loss of Earnings has been calculated by the Actuary, Mr.
Sauer and the basis of the calculations
accord with the expert
reports. It is proven that the minor suffers from the sequelae of his
mild to moderate TBI as well as physical
injuries sustained in the
accident, through the expert reports and the evidence of Ms Roos.
[22] It is presumed in
the joint minutes of Dr Strydom and Ms Lestie- the Industrial
Psychologists, based on the expert reports
of the Neurosurgeon and
Educational Psychologist, that, had the accident not occurred the
minor would have achieved his matric
and a 2 or 3year certificate
after completing matric, which in turn would have enabled him to earn
a salary of a person at the
level of a person with a National Diploma
qualification. Now that the accident has happened the joint minutes
of the Industrial
Psychologists defer to the report of the
Educational Psychologist.
[23] I am of the view
having regard to the minor’s family background, his pre-morbid
performance in school and post-morbid
performance in school-with the
help of a private tutor, that the postulations accord with the facts
and realities in this matter,
except insofar as it did not take the
consistent progress with the help of the private tutor into account.
Furthermore, it was
the submission of the Plaintiff’s Counsel
that special school was looked at and it would not be suitable for
the minor. This
fortified the court’s view that the
minor’s potential with support, though not realized to its full
potential, is not
lost. This court finds the postulation in Ms Roos’
first report that, had the accident not occurred the minor would have
achieved his matric and a 2 or 3year certificate after completing
matric, which in turn would have enabled him to earn a salary
of a
person at the level of a person with a National Diploma qualification
is in accordance with the facts and realities in this
case; and now
that the accident has happened that the minor with the interventions
and assistance that will be provided will at
least complete matric to
be in accordance with the facts as objectively shown in the school
reports and realities in this case,
because this minor has
consistently performed post-morbidly with the help of a private
tutor. The actuarial calculations provide
for this scenario.
[24] The calculation
would therefore be as follows as regards the pre-morbid future
income: R7 479 080.00 – R1 869 770.00
(25% contingency) = R5
609 310.00. Bearing in mind the minor was only 7years old at the time
of the collision, the court allowed
the higher contingency for the
post-morbid projected income: R6 455 422 - R3 227 711.00 (50%
contingency) = R3 227 711.00. That
in turn result in the following
calculations in respect of the minor’s future loss of earnings
R5 609 310.00 (pre-morbid
income) – R3 227 711.00 (post-morbid
income) = R2 381 599.00. This is the total amount I intend awarding
to the Plaintiff
as representing the minor’s loss of income.
[25]
The general rule in matters of costs is that the successful party
should be given his or her costs and this rule should not
be departed
from except where there are good grounds 4 doing so.
[8]
I can think of no reason why I should deviate from this general rule.
Accordingly, I intend awarding costs in favour of the Plaintiff
against the Defendant.
[26] Counsel for the
Plaintiff requested that in accordance with the recommendation of the
neurosurgeon, Dr Mutyaba’s recommendation,
that the financial
award be protected for the minor, by the formation of a Trust into
which any award to be paid by the Defendant
must be paid, in the best
interest of the minor.
[26] In the circumstances
I make the following order:
ORDER
1.1 The Defendant is
ordered to pay the Plaintiff’s attorney the sum of R3 081
599.00 (Three Million and Eighty-One Thousand
Five Hundred and
Ninety-Nine Rand) “capital” in respect of loss of earning
capacity and general damages, eat out as
follows:
Loss of earning
capacity: R 2 381 599.00
General
damages:
R 700 000.00
TOTAL:
R 3 081 599.00
The Plaintiff’s
Attorney’s trust account details are as follows:
ACCOUNT
HOLDER:
VZLR INC
BRANCH:
ABSA BUSINESS BANK
HILLCREST
BRANCH
CODE:
632005
TYPE
OF ACCOUNT:
TRUST ACCOUNT
ACCOUNT
NUMBER:
3[…]
REFERENCE:
MAT124038
1.2 Interest shall accrue
on such outstanding amount at 11.75% (at the
mora
rate of 3.5%
above the repo rate on the date on this order, as per the Prescribe
Rate of Interest Act, 55 of 1975, as amended per
annum calculated
from the due date, as per Road Accident Fund Act, until the date of
payment;
2.
2.1 The defendant is
ordered to replace the Sec 17(4)(a) Undertaking ordered on 18 April
and furnish the
Trustee
appointed in respect of O[…]
O[…] ( the Patient/Plaintiff) with an Undertaking in terms of
Section 17(4)
(a) of the
Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996
for the
costs of the future accommodation of the Patient in a hospital or
nursing home or treatment of or the rendering of a service
or the
supplying of the Patient arising out of injuries sustained by him in
a motor vehicle collision on
24 May 2018
, in terms of which
Undertaking the Defendant will be obliged to compensate the
Trustee
in respect of the said costs after the cost have been incurred by the
Patient or by the
Trustee
or by any party on behalf of the
Patient and thereof. The Defendant is ordered to pay the reasonable
travelling costs and accommodation
for the Patient and his/her
caretaker to and from the location where he/she is to receive
treatment covered under the undertaking.
2.2 Without derogating
from the generating of the foregoing, the undertaking shall include
the reasonable costs of the formation
of an
inter vivos
trust
for the benefit of the Patient and the costs of administration of the
said trust by the
Trustee,
including the costs attendant upon
provision of security by the
Trustee,
and auditing /or
accounting services.
2.3 A case manager to be
appointed, of which the cost of appointment is covered under
Section
17(4)(a)
Undertaking.
3.
3.1 The defendant is to
pay the Plaintiff’s taxed or agreed-on party cost, up to and
including the trial dates of 7,8 &
10 November 2023 and the date
when this order is made an order of the court, for the minor
patient’s attorney which cost
shall include, but not be limited
to the following:
3.1.1 The costs caused by
the postponement of 12,13 & 15 September 2023, which cost shall
include the following;
3.1.1.1 The reservation
and qualifying fees of the of the following experts for 12,13 &
15 September 2023;
Dr
LF Oelofse
Orthopaedic
Surgeon
Dr
D Mutyaba
Neurosurgeon
Ms
L Roos
Educational
Psychologist
Ms
Claire Hearne
Clinical
Psychologist
Ms
A Booyse
Occupational
Therapist
Dr
AC Strydom
Industrial Phycologist
John
Sauer
Actuary
3.1.1.2 The preparation
and full-day fees of counsel for 12,13 & 15 September 2023;
3.1.1.3 The fees of
Curator ad Litem for the 12,13 & 15 September 2023;
3.1.2 The fees of
counsel, including but not limited to a refresher fee for
preparation, consideration, and completion of the heads
of argument
and day fees in respect of the trial dates of 7,8 & 10 November
2023;
3.1.3 The fees of the
Curator ad Litem
for the 12 13 & 15 September 2023;
3.1.4 The cost of
obtaining all expert medico-legal-and any other reports of an experts
which were furnished to the Defendant and
/or its experts;
3.1.5 The reasonable
taxable reservation, qualifying, preparation and appearing fees at
the court of Lida Roos on 7 November 2023.
3.1.6 Interest shall
accrue on such outstanding amount at the mora rate of 3.5% above the
repo on the date of taxation/settlement
of the bill of cost,as per
the Prescribe Rate of Interest Act 55 of 1975, amended, per annum,
calculated from the due date of payment.
4
The
award to the Plaintiff shall be protected through a trust to be
formed for the Minor patient’s benefit.
5
Until
such time as the
Trustee
,
JEANNE HELEN RABIE,
still to
be appointed and the trust to be erected, is able to take control of
the capital sum and to deal with the same in terms
of this order, the
Plaintiff’s attorney of record:
5.1
Shall be prohibited from dealing with the capital in any other manner
unless specifically authorised thereto by the court, subject
to
paragraphs 5.2-5.5 hereunder;
5.2
Are authorised to invest the capital amount in an interest-bearing
account with a registered banking institution in terms of
Section
86(4) of the legal Practise Act, Act no: 28 of 2014 to the Patient
and will only be allowed to pay such monies over over
to the
Trustee
of the trust to be created in terms of paragraph 5 of this order,
once the Master of the High Court has issued the
Trustee
with
the necessary letter of authority;
5.3
Are further authorised to pay the cost to set the security of the
funds held in trust, from the capital received, to the relevant
insurer by the
Trustee
of the trust to be created, which
costs, in turn, must be refunded by the Defendant to the Plaintiff;
5.4
From the date of receiving the capital and up and till the Master of
the High Court has issued the
Trustee
with the necessary
letters of authority, are authorised and ordered to make payment in
the amount of R5000,00 per month as, as
well as such other amount(s)
that may reasonably be indicated and/or required for the wellbeing of
the Plaintiff and /or in his/her
interest which a diligent
Trustee
been appointed;
5.5
Are authorised to make payment of the attorney and own client costs,
being fees, Disbursements and interest on paid disbursements,
of the
Plaintiff’s attorneys.
6
The
nominated
Trustee
is ordered to furnish security to the
satisfaction of the Master of the High Court.
7
The
nominated Trustee shall attend to the creation of an
inter
vivos
trust to protect the awarded funds to the exclusive
benefits of the Plaintiff.
8
That
the trust to be erected for the benefit of the Patient on these
papers, with powers which shall include (but not be limited
to) the
powers as referred to in the Trust Deed attached hereto as
Annexure
“A”
and the content of the proposed Trustee attached
hereto
Annexure “B”
are regarded as incorporated
into this order.
9
The
defendant is ordered to pay the costs for the creation and future
administration of the said trust, to be formed to manage and
administer the compensation payable to the Patient as referred to in
this order, which costs will include the fees of the
Trustee.
10
The
reasonable remuneration to which the
Trustee
will be entitled
in respect of execution of the Trustee’s official duties is as
follows:
10.1 An
acceptance/establishment fee of 1% (Excl. VAT) on all capital
introduced into the Trust.
10.2
An annual administration fee based on a percentage of the value of
the assets under administration, which percentage will be
subject to
the following sliding scale.
10.2.1
R0.00-R500 000.00-1.5% (Excl. VAT)
10.2.2
R500 000.00-R1 000 000.00-1.25% (Excl. VAT)
10.2.3 1 000 000.00-1%
(Excl. VAT)
10.3
The undertaking contemplated by section 17(4)(a) of Act 56 of 1996
will be administrated by the
Trustee,
and the
Trustee
or his/her agent/attorney will be entitled to an administration fee
of 10% on all successful claims.
10.4
Travel expenses for purposes for attending to Trust-related matters.
10.5
A termination fee of 2% (Excl VAT) on the assets of the Trust at the
time of termination/dissolution of the Trust.
10.6
The parties recognise that the Trustee, an attorney, is a
professional Trustee and agree that the Trust shall pay the Trustee
the Trustee’s usual charges for any work performed by the
Trustee beyond the ambit of the Trustee’s official duties
in
her capacity as an attorney acting on behalf of the Trust.
11
A
valid contingency fee agreement exists between the Plaintiff and
Plaintiff’s attorneys in terms of the Contingency Fee Act.
M.T. JORDAAN
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN
Counsel
for Plaintiff:
Adv
D Marx
Instructed
by
VZLR
ATTORNEYS c/o DU PLOOY ATTORNEYS
Email:
admin@duplooylaw.co.za
phillip@vzlr.co.za
dmarxlaw@icloud.com
Attorney
for Defendant:
Mrs
Bornman
Instructed
by
STATE
ATTORNEY, BLOEMFONTEIN
Email:
charleneb@raf.co.za
charbornman@gmail.com
[1]
Expert
Notices Volume 2 pages 184- 200 at page 194
[2]
Ibid
at page 197
[3]
Expert
Notice Volume 1 page 49 paragraph 11.3.5
[4]
International
Shipping Co (Pty) Ltd v Bentley
1990 (1) SA 680
(A) ([1989]ZASCA
138) at 700F-I; Siman & Co (Pty) Ltd v Barclays National Bank
Ltd
1984 (2) SA 888
(A) at 915B - H
[5]
Lee
v Minister of Correctional Services 2013 (2) SA 144 (CC)
[6]
1975
(3) SA 590 (A)
[7]
Protea
Assurance Company Ltd v Lamb
1971 (1) SA 530
(A)
[8]
Meyers
v Abramson
1951 (3) SA 438
(C).