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
>>
2025
>>
[2025] ZAGPJHC 370
|
|
Molokomme v Road Accident Fund (902/2020) [2025] ZAGPJHC 370 (12 March 2025)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO
: 902/2020
DATE
:
12-03-2025
(1) REPORTABLE: NO.
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER
JUDGES: NO.
(3) REVISED.
In
the matter between
MOLOKOMME
NCHAKGA ELIZABETH
Plaintiff
and
ROAD ACCIDENT
FUND
Defendant
JUDGMENT
WEIDEMAN, AJ
:
The accident from which this claim arose occurred on 27 June 2019.
The minor involved was born on 3 January 2012. The
aspect
of liability in this matter had previously been conceded, that
concession is dated 16 January 2020 and appears
on
CaseLines at B1-21.
The injuries are set out
as follows in paragraph 7 of the plaintiff's particulars of claim on
CaseLines at B1 A-20:
·
a head injury including a fracture to the
base of the skull with psychological and psychiatric sequelae;
·
soft tissue injuries to the left wrist,
hip;
·
multiple undefined further soft tissue
injuries;
·
a laceration to the lip;
·
a left leg injury;
·
a left forearm injury; and
·
rib injuries.
The plaintiff applied in
terms of Rule 33(4) for the separation and postponement of the claims
for past hospital and medical expenses
and general damages
.
The claim in respect of
future hospital and medical expenses will no doubt be dealt with in
accordance with the standard approach
of this defendant, which leaves
the aspect of future loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity
before Court.
Counsel summarised the
salient aspects of the various medico-legal reports in his heads of
argument. The conclusions of the experts
on which the actuarial
calculations are based do not induce a sense of shock, and are
accepted as reasonable and substantiated.
On this basis the
pre-contingency amount in the but for the accident scenario is
calculated at R4 674 382 and the having
regard to the
accident figure at R3 271 389.
The actuary utilised
illustrative contingency deductions in his report and counsel
presented an alternative from the bar.
Considering the totality
of the evidence before Court as well as the length of the
calculation, spanning a career of 40 years, the
following
contingencies are warranted:
In respect of the but for
the accident scenario I have applied a .75% per annum contingency,
which over 40 years equates to 30 percent.
The pre-accident figure
then becomes R3 272 067.
In the having regard to
the accident scenario, the lowered income earning trajectory
reflected in the actuarial report, to a very
significant extent,
compensates for and addresses the injuries and its sequelae.
For the above reason, I
am of the view that the “having regard to” the accident
contingency deduction need not be significantly
higher than the
pre-accident figure of .75% and in the having regard to the accident
scenario I have applied a 1% continency deduction
per annum over the
40-year working lifespan of the plaintiff, which results in a 40%
contingency deduction. The post-accident figure
then reduces to
R1 962 833.
The nett effect of
applying a .75% per annum pre-accident and 1% per annum post-accident
deduction on the actuarially calculated
figures results in an amount
of R1 309 234.
My order is therefore as
follows:
1. The plaintiff's
application in terms of Rule 33(4), to separate out and postpone
sine die
the heads of damage of past hospital and medical
expenses and general damages is granted.
2. The plaintiff's
application in terms of Rule 38(2) to present evidence on affidavit
is granted.
3. The defendant shall
provide the minor with an unlimited undertaking in terms of section
17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act
for such 100% future hospital,
medical and ancillary expenses as the minor may require.
4. In respect of future
loss of earning capacity the defendant shall pay the minor the sum of
R1 309 234.
5.The plaintiff is
entitled to party and party costs as taxed or agreed. Counsel's fees
shall be on Scale B.
WEIDEMAN,
A
J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
DATE
: