1
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 AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO : 18554/2021
In the matter between:
KUPA: MOCHADIBANA NAPYADI Plaintiff
and
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Defendant
JUDGMENT
Delivered: This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties/their legal representatives by e- mail and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on
CaseLines. The date for hand- down is deemed to be10h00 on 26 March 2025.
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) O F INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO
…………..…………............. 26 MARCH 2025
SIGNATURE DATE
2
MALUNGANA AJ
Introduction
[1] P laintiff, a 28 year old female BCom Accounting graduate, seeks to recover
damages from the defendant, for injuries which she suffered arising out of a motor
vehicle collision. On 9 December 2017 plaintiff was traveling as a passenger with other members of her family from Venda to Gauteng Province, when she was injured in a collision. Sadly all other members, her father, aunt and one of her siblings died
in the said accident.
[2] As a result of the aforesaid collision, plaintiff suffered severe neurological and
orthopaedic injuries, comprising of:
(a) A head injury with severe brain injury, severe traumatic
neuropsychological disfunction; vestibular disfunction and insomnia;
(b) Facial injury with scarring;
(c) Left hemi pelvic fracture, with chronic pelvic pains,
(d) Right Tib -Fib fracture with weakness of the right leg;
(e) Left lung contusion;
(f) Right Tib -Fib fracture with gait and station disorder;
(g) Solitary rib fracture.
[3] The nature and extent of these injuries are set out in various medico- legal
reports tendered in evidence, and are not in dispute. However, there is a dispute as
to whether the sequalae of the injuries have resulted in the plaintiff being unable to
reach her career path of attaining a doctorate degree or pursued a career as a
certified chartered accountant .
Issues
[4] The merits and other subhead of damages have been settled, save for loss of
earnings incurred by the plaintiff. I am therefore required to adjudicate the question of the plaintiff’s loss of earnings.
3
The Loss of Earnings Claim
[5] In the particulars of claim, the plaintiff’s claim for loss earnings is formulated
as follows:
“10.4 Loss of earnings/loss of income/loss of earning
capacity and or employability: R12 000 000.00
The above is an estimate based on:
10.4.1 At the time of the accident Plaintiff was doing her second year towards a Bachelor. Of Commerce in accounting at University of Johannesburg and had a career choice of becoming an accountant;
10.4.2 Before the accident, and more particularly, in December 2017, she passed her six subjects with distinctions;
10.4.3 Post accident, she is failing at school and or performing poorly . She
had to repeat courses and could not finish her degree in record time;
10.4.4 The injuries have interfered with the Plaintiff’s choice of education a nd
or academic achievement or career development;
10..4.5 In 2020 Plaintiff enrolled for Honours in accounting with Stellenbosch
university and is currently repeating the same year;
10.4.6 It is evident that Plaintiff will never reach her premorbid education
potential and may only be limited to clerical/administrative work at best and or
unemployable at worst.
10.4.7 The injuries have interfered with the Plaintiff future earnings, and or earning capacity, promotion, salary increment, working lifespan and or
bonuses;
4
10.4.8 The injuries have rendered the Plaintiffs unemployable in an open
market.”
The Evidence
[6] In a trial that spanned for almost 7 (seven) days, the plaintiff relied upon the
evidence of her expert witnesses, while the defendant did not file any expert report nor led any evidence. Advo cate Makopo appeared for the plaintiff, while Advocate
Mahlangu appeared for the defendant. The parties were ad idem that the oral
testimony of the undermentioned witness es would be sufficient for the d isposal of the
issue the Court is seized with. [7] Dr Samuel Mpotoane, a neurosurgeon, was the first witness called to testify
by the plaintiff. He prepared a comprehensive medico -legal report as well as the
addendum thereof. He described the plaintiff’s phys ical injuries as follows: She was
brought to the hospital on a stretcher with facial injury, both upper and lower injuries, left pelvic injury, left laceration; avulsion wound on the scalp and forehead with
exposed venous and arterial bleeding, right fib- tib injury, blunt chest injury and
breathing spontaneously with GAAEB. She was the only survivor in the accident,
having lost her father, sister and aunt.
[8] The plaintiff complained of chronic headaches; memory problems and
dizziness. She struggles with post traumatic anxiety and has socially withdrawn. He noted in his addendum report of June 2024, that the plaintiff had completed her honours degree in 2020, is currently employed by RMB since July 2023 where she earns a salary of R10 300.00 per month.
[9] Dr Mpotoane concluded that, given all the relevant factors outlined in his
report, more especially severe traumatic brain injury and other injuries, the plaintiff
reached a period of maximum medical improvement, and no further clinical improvement will be expected. There is about 10- 20% of her developing epilepsy.
The plaintiff’s life expectancy was not affected by the accident.
5
[10] Nothing significant came out of the witness’ cross examination . He was asked
about the severity of the brain injury in view of the Glass Coma Scale of 15/15 as
recorded by the hospital. His response was that the G CS is not the only measure for
the determination of the severity of the brain injury or prolonged level of
unconsciousness. There are other factors to be considered in the determination.
[11] Dr Ingrid Jonker, a neuropsychologist, testified about the neuropsychological
impact the accident had had on the plaintiff. According to the test conducted on the
plaintiff she displayed a lack of concentration. She presented with a mental
processing speed deficits.
[12] Dr Ingrid Jonker, had these to say about the plaintiff’s employment history :
(a) The plaintiff was in a one year internship programme at RMB from July
2023 to June 2024. Due to financial constraints the business could not extend her contract.
(b) Her responsibilities at RMB entailed authorizing trades, cash
predictions, reports, removals , allotments as well as repairing trades.
(c) She reported to Dr Jonker that she had experienced a lot of anxiety at
work. She also told him that she had to make notes frequently in order to remind herself of things and had checked her work constantly . She has been
unsuccessfully in finding another job in the accounting and financial sector.
[13] As regards treatment, the plaintiff has been taking the following medication.
Two Mybulen tablets for treatment of headaches post accident once a week;
Urbanos as well as Ativan, anxiolytic medication; on a regular basis for treatment of
anxiety since 2023 and; Trapline, a tricyclic anti -depressant, since 2023.
[14] Dr Jonker stated that the plaintiff has developed withdrawal tendencies, which
makes it difficult for he r to attract a romantic partner. She had been in a romantic
relationship during the accident, and became detached after the accident. She is
conscious of the scarring on her face.
6
[15] Her mind remains more sluggish and she continuous to experience some
mental slowing. She is not efficient with planning or when mult i-tasking.
[16] She experiences headaches around once a week; discomfort and sensitivity
to her left hip which has become aggravated when standing or walking for extended periods. She experiences pains in her lower right leg in inclement weather or when walking for a long distances. She struggles to run or kneel properly. She suffers from itchiness to her facial scarring especially in hot weather.
[17] Dr Jonker concluded that the plaintiff suffers from chronic symptoms of a
depressive disorder, anxiety and features of a Posttraumatic Stress Disorder as a
result of the accident on 09 December 2017.
[18] Dr Jonker further stated in her addendum report, at paragraph 10.7.4.5 that :
“The neuropsychological re- assessment provided evidence that Ms Kupa has
been experiencing ongoing cognitive challenges, especially in the domains of
concentration; attention; rote verbal, narrative and virtual memory,
visuospatial planning and construction, as well as mental processing speed.
These cognive problems are expected to compromise her future
performances and competitiveness in the open labour market. In this regard,
her concentration difficulties are expected top result in inconsistent performances as well as in difficulties in effectively sustain her work pace.”
[19] Dr Joseph Seab i, the Educational Psychologist , also gave evidence on behalf
of the plaintiff. He testified that he was not aware that the plaintiff failed her grade 10
when he did his initial report. However, in 2015, the plaintiff managed to pass grade
12 with an exemption, after which she enrolled for a BCom general degree at the
University of Johannesburg. In her second year she developed an interest in becoming a chartered accountant. She then enrolled for BCom Accounting degree and passed all modules with 6 distinctions.
[20] Post accident, the plaintiff started to experience deterioration in her academic
performance. She failed most of her modules, and only managed to pass them
7
through supplementary examinations with 50 and 60s marks. Dr Seabi testified that
the plaintiff had to convert her studies to be able to pass. Albeit with deteriorated
performance, the plaintiff managed to pass all her modules in 2019. She then enrolled for one year full time Honours degree in 2020 at the University of Stellenbosch. She failed about 5 modules and only managed to pass in 2023 after repeating some modules three times. She reported to Dr Seabi that she has found
studying more effortful and strenuous post the accident due to pain and emotional instability. She had developed flashbacks and she worries why all the people in the
car had died and she survived. [21] It was Dr Seabi’s testimony that the plaintiff is emotional ly drained and feels
worthless. She presented with physical weakness, emotionally depressed with anxiety disorder. She has memory and concertation difficulties as set out in page 36
of his updated report. He postulated that the plaintiff would have attained a doctorate degree, but for the accident. The scars on her face have deprived her of the lifestyle. She will struggle to complete a Master’s degree like she did with Honours. Bearing in
mind that during her Honours degree she was not working, so her work demands will exacerbate the situation. Her IQ remains very low while there is an improvement in
her emotional state. However, hopelessness remains a problem She has high level
of depression and anxiety. He postulates that her high level of education will remain
with Honours degree, nothing beyond. Repeated failing, Dr Seabi opines, leads to
low academic self - esteem.
[22] During cross examination, Dr Seabi testified that he was not in possession of
the plaintiff’ school reports when he compiled his report. He conceded that she failed grade 10, but said it was because of English. He said one does not have to look at a
single factor to determine if one is a bright student. It is a composite of factors. Her cognitive ability remains a major problem, it has deteriorated. The plaintiff would
have progressed to ‘ NQF 10 level ’ post accident, equivalent of Doctorate degree. .
[23] Dr Seabi states i n paragraph 11.6.8 of his report that: “On the basis of the
available information, it is estimated that Moachadibana ‘s pre -morbid intellectual
ability was within the Superior range, which is consistent with functioning at a level where she could have progressed through her tertiary studies and obtained a
8
Doctorate Degree (NQF level 10), considering that it is well documented in recent
studies that children are achieving better qualifications than their parents, and in
view of her diligence, motivation, commitment, perseverance, and dedication towards the academic project. ”
[24] Ms Clara Shivambu, the occupational therapist was also called to testify for
the plaintiff. Her testimony was to the effect that the plaintiff was terrified to drive due
to trauma. She prefers to be alone most of the time. She requires a great deal of
therapy to be able to cope with day to day life. She has neurological dysfunction and delayed memory as well as attention deficit. She easily forgets stuff and takes longer to perform tasks. Her initial plans were to become a CA (Chartered Accountant). Her managers and co- employees will not recognize her potential, because she prefers to
be alone. She will be more suited to work in a structed environment. A prospective
employer would have to be more sympathetic and be able to understand her. She
will require s psychological support to be able to cope functionally.
[25] Ms Mhlanga asked Ms Shivambu if she was in possession of the plaintiff’s
academic record during the medico examination. Her response was that no on e had
same. She stated that the plaintiff’s career choice fa lls within sedentary to light work .
She confirmed that the plaintiff’s ambition was to become a Chartered Accountant. Her overall quality of life has been affected by the accident.
[26] Ms Shivambu, however, conceded that the plaintiff did not require a doctorate
degree to be a CA. She stated that she relied on the opinion of the educational
phycologist when it comes to the plaintiff’s academic progression. She nevertheless ,
opines that the plaintiff requires a cognitive rehabilitation to prevent further deterioration.
[27] Dr Talia Talmud, the industrial psychologist, postulated that the plaintiff’s
completion of the B Com Honours degree should not be equated to successful
performance in the open labour market as studies can be mastered at the individual’s own pace with ongoing repetition, which is not a luxury afforded in a working environment. She opines that the plaintiff’s cognitive challenges are more
likely to compromise her future performances and competitiveness in the open
9
labour market, The plaintiff’s concentration difficulties will result in inconsistent
performances as well as difficulties in effectively sustaining her work pace. She will
struggle with complex tasks and other work demands. She will be susceptible to
fatigue and mental exhaustion. [28] Dr Talmud further opines that, the plaintiff’s ongoing depression, low levels of
drive, low frustration tolerance as well as her fatigability will likely render her less
resilient and less competitive in the open labour market. It is her view that due to
cognitive difficulties, concentration lapses, difficulties in retrieval of information; which serve as additional barrier; emotional trauma, and travel related anxiety incurred due to the sequelae of the injuries, her highest level of education would in all likelihood
remain an Honours degree (NQF8), which evidently has taken her 4 years, beyond record time.
[29] She concludes that, from neuroeducational perspective, the plaintiff suffered a
severe traumatic brain injury with severe neuropsychological dysfunction, vestibular
dysfunction, and sleep arouser disorder. She would not be able to reach her academic potential that of a doctorate, and achieve her career dream of certified
chattered accountant. Her injuries have resulted in a significant future loss of
earnings. She requires a sympathetic/accommodative employment. Her collective
limitations have significantly and permanently curtailed her ability to compete for lucrative employment and to maintain employment relevant to her educational background. The plaintiff will be limited to securing temporary/contract type positions of a lower semi -skilled nature in the open labour market.
[30] Under cross examination, she testified that the documents which she referred
to are all in her reports. She postulated that based on the plaintiff’s scholiastic
history contained in the educational psychologist’s report, the plaintiff had a potential
to pursue a doctorate degree or become a chartered accountant at NFQ 10 level.
She now has a residual earning capacity at a lower skilled level. Currently s he
battles to get interviews.
Submissions
10
[31] Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the defendant did not contest the
reports of Dr Breytenbach, the orthopaedic surgeon, and Dr Miller, the psychiatrist,
whose reports I am urged to have regard to. She submitted that Dr Breytenbach
came to the conclusion that the plaintiff will have restrictions in physical activities and some deficiency in mobilisation, while Dr Miler opines that the plaintiff would benefit
from being referred to a psychiatrist for psychotropic medication to treat her
depression, anxiety, panic disorder and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). In regard to the acceptance of the expert’s opinion, counsel for the plaintiff referred me to the case of PriceWaterhouseCoopersinc v National Potato Co OP 2015 ZASCA 2
in which the Court had this to say :
“Opinion evidence is admissible “when the Court can receive “appreciate
help” from that witness on the particular issue. “That will be when:
‘…by reason of their special knowledge and skill, they are better qualified to draw inference than the trier of fact. There are some subjects upon which the
Court is usually quite incapable of forming an opinion unassisted, and others
upon which it could come to some sort of independent conclusion, but the
help of an expert would be useful.” I cannot agree more with the approach
and principles enunciated in the cited authority.
[32] The defendant’s counsel on the other hand, submitted that the plaintiff’s
educational psychologist conceded that he was not in possession of the primary and
high school reports, and only had the plaintiff’s matric and university transcripts. In this regard M s. Mhlanga argued that the said expert’s findings and conclusions were
inadequate to determine the plaintiff’s learning journey. Moreover, she argued, the
plaintiff repeated grade 10, and the educational psychologist ought not to have placed the plaintiff at high average without the relevant school reports. The questions
raised by the defendant were eloquently dealt with by Dr Seabi, when he stated that he had regard to various factors before coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff possessed the necessary potential to pursue a PHD degree pre accident.
Discussion
11
[33] The plaintiff reported to the industrial psychologist, Ms Talmud that her main
concern was her anxiety, which has affected her interpersonal skills which in turn has
affected academic performance negatively. These challenges continue to affect her interaction at her current workplace. She does not engage in any social interaction at
work and she limits her interaction with her manager. Her career choice is limited to
sedentary to light physical demand level.
[34] It is postulated that the plaintiff would most likely have been able to achieve a
doctoral degree (NQF Level 10) pre- morbidly. She reported to the Industrial
psychologist and other experts that her pre- morbid aspiration was to become a
chartered management accountant (CMA). According to Talmud, she did a desktop
research on the plaintiff’s postulated career path. Given the fact that the plaintiff had completed a BCom Hons Management Accounting degree, she could have
proceeded to complete a CIMA approved -programmed as shown in paras 6.2- 63 of
her addendum report.
[35] It is postulated that her pre- morbid career scenario will prevail in respect of
the plaintiff’s loss of earnings. According to the educational psychologist her
cognitive difficulties have worsened and are likely deemed permanent. The findings made by the psychiatrist, neuropsychologists as per their initial reports remain
unchanged. The neuropsychologist noted that the plaintiff is struggling and relies on
the psychotherapeutic support to cope. Her mental health is likely to deteriorate.
[36] According to the occupational therapist, her physical decline is likely to persist
due to ongoing pain limitations.
[37] I hold that that no proper case has been made by the defendant for me to
ignore the evidence of the experts who testified before me. The evidence of the
witnesses called by the plaintiff was clear and convincing. It was not disturbed or rebutted under cross examination. I find myself unable to align with Ms Mhlanga’
submission that the mere absence or omission of other documents when assessing
the plaintiff’s scholastic performance renders their evidence unreliable. In my view
that is not a sufficient reason for the court to reject their credible evidence. The educational psychologist has candidly admitted that he was not in possession of all
12
the school reports of the plaintiff when he was compiling his report. However, he
explained that it was not the only evidentiary material required to determine the
plaintiff’s academic potential , there are other considerations such as the plaintiff’s
academic record which he had regard to. Ms Tulamd notes in her report that it was
not even necessary to complete a PHD to progress to roles graded at Paterson E2. Her scholastic potential suggests that even in the absence of completing PHD
studies, she would have been able to make decisions at the associated level of complexity and compete for market related earnings. [38] Furthermore, on the facts before me, the plaintiff has shown that she was able
to achieve a BCom Honours degree despite the challenges she faced, including the
psychological impact emanating from the loss of her family members in the accident in question. I am prepared to accept that but for the accident, the plaintiff would have
seen her future as a chartered accountant.
[39] Having regard to the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, the related sequalae
thereof, it is clear that her competitiveness in the open labour marked has now been
truncated. She is neurologically and physically handicapped. I accept that, given the
nature and extent of her injuries, and the sequelae thereof, she is unlikely to realize
her dream as a chartered accountant.
[40] As in Dippenaar v Shield Insurance Company Limited [ 1979] 4 All SA
92(AD). “the defendant must make good the difference between the value of the
plaintiff’s estate after the commission of the delict and the value it would have
had if the delict had not been committed. The capacity to earn money is considered to be part of the person’s estate and the loss or impairment of that capacity constitutes a loss, if such loss diminishes the estate.”
[41] I turn now to the quantification of loss of income suffered by the plaintiff. The
evidence of the i ndustrial psychologist , Ms Talmud, was to the effect that after
qualifying as Associate of the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (ACMA) plaintiff would have been able to increase her income in line with the market
related guaranteed an nual package for positions graded at Paterson C1. With the
accumulation of experience she would have been able to compete for lower and
13
executive roles, then progressed to reach her career ceiling in positions graded at
Paterson E2.
[42] As held in Southern Insurance Association Ltd v Bailey 1984 (1) Sa 98(A),
often cited in these kind of cases, “any enquiry into damages for loss of earning
capacity is of its nature speculative because it involves a prediction as to the future ,
without the benefit of crystal balls, soothsayers, augurs, 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 the loss.”
[43] In Santam Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk v Byleveldt (1973 2 Sa 146 (A))
Trollip AJ makes the point (174E -F):
“Basically, it is true, the compensation our Courts award is also for impairment of the capacity to earn, but generally it is measured by reference to the loss of
earnings. Where the injured party was in normal employment at the time he was injured and would have continued in it but for his incapacitation, such employment is ordinarily regarded as reflecting his earning capacity. His loss
of earnings, actual or prospective, is, therefore, usually taken as the true
measure of the impairment of his earning capacity. ”
[44] Returning now to the present case. The evidence establishes that the
plaintiff’s earning capacity has been severely compromised. Furthermore, there is
evidence to the affect that even if the plaintiff did not complete PHD she had the
potential to progress to an associated level of complexity enabling her to earn an
income that falls within the PHD earning brackets.
[45] With the above said, I am I agree with the plaintiff’s counsel, Ms M akopo, that
the Court has sufficient evidence before it upon which an actuarial calculation to
determine the plaintiff’s loss can be made, without having to defer to a robust, unrealistic and thumb suck approach. [46] As regards the assessment of contingencies applicable to such calculation,
Ms Mhlanga submitted that a higher contingent factor should be appl ied. On the
14
contrary , counsel for the plaintiff argued that the most appropriate approach is to
apply the proverbial 5% contingency on the past loss of earnings, and 20% on the
future loss of earnings based on the conspectus of all the facts. I have given consideration to their respective submissions. The less I say the better.
[47] Fortunately in this case the plaintiff has filed an actuarial report by GW
Jacobson. I do not have to use a thumb suck approach. [48] The report by the aforesaid actuary is based on the following relevant
assumptions:
“4.1 Past and Future income but for the accident
4.1.1 Retirement Age
Retirement is taken at age 65
4.1.2 Income
Her income are taken as follows:
Date Paterson Salary adjusted to date or
Salary Salary Level Current Terms
Increase 1-Jul-24 C1 LQ Basic Salary R 265 259*
1-Oct- 24 C1 LQ Basic Salary R 268 578
1-Jan-28 C1 Median Package R 450 000
1-Jul- 41 E2 Median Package R 1 806 240
Inflation adjusted uniform increases have been assumed between the above levels.
*R 268 578 per annum in current money terms.
4.1.3 Future Inflation
15
Her earnings would have increased after 1.10.2024 due to the effects of
inflation at the rate of 6.34% per annum compound.
4.1.4 Pension Benefits
Pension benefits are included in the above packages where applicable.”
[49] The summary of the loss of income has been calculated as follows:
“Past Loss
Value of Income but for the accident R 58 173
5% Contingency Deduction R 2 909
R 55 264
Value of Income having regard to accident R- 64 481
Future Loss
Value of Income but for accident R 19 328 844
20% Contingency Deduction R 3 865 769
Net value of income having regard to accident R 15 463 975
Value of Income having regard to accident R 2 733 329
20% Contingency Deduction R 546 666
Net value of income having regard to accident R 2 186 663
Net Future Loss: R 13 276 412
TOTAL NET LOSS R 13 211 931
This claim is however affected by the Road Accident Fund Amendment Act 19 of 2005. The annual loss at the time of the accident amounted to R 263 900
per annum. This limit was accounted for throughout the calculations. Due to the limitation of the losses, the loss of income reduces to the following:
Net Past Loss: R -64 481
Net Future Loss: R 9 0 93 006
TOTAL NET LOSS: R 9 028 525
16
[50] I accept the above calculations which had taken into consideration the
approach proposed by actuary Robert Koch appertaining to the contingencies.
[51] Accordingly, I make the following order in plaintiff’s favour:
Order
1. The Defendant is to pay the P laintiff the sum of
R 9 028 525.00 (Nine
Million Twenty Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Five Rands) in
respect of loss or earnings only, into the trust account of the Plaintiff’s Attorneys, Zwelakhe Mgudlandlu Attorneys. Payment of the capital amount
is to be made within 180 (one hundred and eighty) days of this order failing which the Defendant shall become liable to pay interest a tempore morae on
the capital amount aforesaid at a rate of 10,50% per annum from 181 (one
hundred and eighty one) days after date of this order to date of final payment.
2. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff’s taxed or agreed party and party
costs, such costs to include the costs incurred in respect of the employment of
the following expert witnesses’ reports together with their addendum reports,
appearances, cost for settling heads of argument and reservation fees, if any and to be proven to the taxing master: -
2.1.1 Dr Mpotoane – Specialist Neurosurgeon
2.1.2 Dr Jonker – Neuropsychologist
2.1.3 Dr Seabi – Educational Psychologist
2.1.4 Ms Sivhabu – Occupational Therapist
2.1.5 Ms Talmud – Industrial Psychologist
2.1.6 Dr Breytenbach – Orthopaedic Surgeon
2.1.7 Dr Miles – Psychiatrist
2.1.8 Mr R Imme lmann - Gera ld Jacobson Actuaries
2.2 T he costs of counsel employed on behalf of the Plaintiff on B scale.
2.3 In the event of these costs not being agreed, then:
17
2.3.2 the Plaintiff’s bill of costs will be served on the Defendant; and
2.3.2 the taxed bill of costs will be payable within 180 (one hundred and
eighty) days after taxation, failing which the Defendant shall become liable to pay interest a tempore morae on the taxed costs aforesaid at a rate of 10, 50%
per annum from 181 (one hundred and eighty -one) days after taxation to date
of final payment.
3. The payments referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this order shall
be made into the Plaintiff's attorneys, Zwelakhe Mgudlandlu Attorneys, trust
banking account.
NAME OF ACCOUNT: Z[…] M[…] A[…]
BANK: F[…] N[…] B[…]
BRANCH: C[…] C[…]
ACCOUNT NO: 6[…]
REFERENCE: Z[…]
EMAIL: M[…]
4. The Defendant is to furnish the Plaintiff with an Undertaking in terms of
Section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act, Act No 56 of 1996 within
30days, in respect of injuries sustained by the Plaintiff in a motor vehicle
collision which occurred on 09
th December 2017.
MALUNGANA
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
JOHANNESBURG
Heard on: 23 October - 07 November 2024
Delivered on: 26 March 2025
For the Plaintiff : Adv. N Makopo
instructed by : Zwelakhe Mgudlandlu Attorneys
18
For the Defendant: Ms Mahlanga
instructed by : State Attorney, Johannesburg.