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
Reportable: YES/NO
Of Interest to other Judges: YES/NO
Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO
Case no: 2587/2021
In the matter between:
NKHOLISENG REGINAH GEDU
[NEé RABOKO ]
and
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Plaintiff
Defendant
Coram: De Kock, AJ
Heard: 11 February 2025
Delivered: This judgment was handed down and released to SAFLII. The date for
hand- down is deemed to be 21 February 2025.
.
Summary : Road Accident Fund – loss of income – general damages.
ORDER
1. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff the sum of R2 400 000.00 (two million
four hundred thousand rand) in terms of quantum, set out as follows:
2
1.1 Loss of earnings R1 600 000.00
General damages R 800 000.00
SUBTOTAL R2 400 000.00
1.2 The defendant shall pay the amount of R2 400 000.00 (two million four
hundred thousand rand) within one hundred and eighty (180) days of date hereof into the plaintiff’s attorneys trust account. The plaintiff’s trust account details are as follows:
Account holder : Van der Spuy (Cape Town)
Branch : Nedbank
Branch code : 118 602
Type of account : Trust account
Account number : 118[…]
Reference number : LW/MAT32944
1.3 Interest shall accrue on such outstanding amount as per the Prescribed Rate
of Interest Act 55 of 1975, as amended, per annum, calculated from due date, as per the Road Accident Fund Act, until the date of payment.
2. The defendant will pay the plaintiff’s taxed or agreed party and party costs
including but not limited to the costs as set out herein below:
2.1 The reasonable qualification and reservation fees of the plaintiff’s following
experts:
(i) Dr Anton van den Bout, Orthopaedic Surgeon;
(ii) Dr N Kruger, Radiologist;
(iii) Dr Keith Cronwright, Plastic Surgeon;
(iv) Ms Frizelna Steyn, Occupational Therapist;
(v) Dr Leon Bezuidenhout, Industrial Psychologist;
3
(vi) Wim Loots (Actuarial Consulting, Actuary).
2.2 The fees of counsel in terms of rule 67A(3) (a) read with rule 69(7) on Scale B
which costs shall include, but is not limited to, the drafting of heads of argument and trial date of 11 February 2025.
2.3 In the event of default on the payment of costs, interest shall accrue on such
outstanding amount at the statutory mora rate on the date of taxation/settlement of
the bill of costs, as per the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act 55 of 1975, per annum, calculated from due date until the date of payment.
JUDGMENT
De Kock, AJ
Introduction:
[1] On 27 October 2010, the p laintiff was involved in a motor vehicle collision that
resulted in injuries. The plaintiff instituted action against the defendant in terms of the
Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996.
[2] In the plaintiff’s particulars of claim , she claimed as past loss of earnings the
amount of R1 180 000.00, such amount being inclusive of an illustrative contingency deduction of 20%. The p laintiff , in respect of future loss of earnings , claimed the
amount of R550 000.00 inclusive of an illustrative contingency deduction of 35% in
respect of the plaintiff’s uninjured and injured future loss of earnings. Further , the
plaintiff claimed as general damages the amount of R900 000.00.
[3] On 15 October 2013, the defendant’s liability was settled on the basis that it
undertook to pay the plaintiff 100% of her proven damages. As such, t he claim for
4
past and future of earnings, relating contingency deductions and claim for general
damages stands to be adjudicated.
[4] On 19 December 2024, the plaintiff brought an application to admit the
affidavits, with incorporation of the medico- legal reports filed on behalf of the plaintiff
of the following experts into evidence in terms of Uniform Rule 38(2):
4.1 The affidavit by Dr Anton van den Bout, Orthopaedic Surgeon, ( Van den Bout )
with inclusion of:
4.1.1 RAF 4 – Serious Injury Assessment Report, dated 24 May 2021;
4.1.2 Narrative and medico- legal report, dated 25 May 2021, inclusive of the X -ray
report of Dr N Kruger.
4.2 The affidavit by Dr Keith Cronwright, Plastic Surgeon ( Cronwright ) with
inclusion of:
4.2.1 RAF 4 – Serious Injury Assessment Report, dated 25 May 2021;
4.2.2 Narrative and medico- legal report, dated 25 May 2021.
4.3 The affidavit by Ms Frizelna Steyn, Occupational Therapist, ( Steyn ) with
inclusion of her report dated 18 January 2023.
4.4 Affidavit by Dr Leon Bezuidenhout, Industrial Psychologist, ( Bezuidenhout )
with inclusion of his report dated 1 February 2023.
4.5 Affidavit by Mr Wim Loots, Actuary, (Loots Actuaries ) with inclusion of his
report dated 10 October 2024.
[5] The order in terms of Uniform Rule 38(2) was granted on 19 December 2024.
[6] The legal representative for the d efendant indicated that she holds no
instructions, but that she is not withdrawing as attorney of record.
[7] At the onset , the legal representative on behalf of the p laintiff requested that
the prayers of the application in terms of s 3(1) of the Law of Evidence Amendment
Act 45 of 1998 be granted. I granted such orders , essentially admitting the collateral
documents into evidence.
5
Oral evidence:
[8] The previous employer of the plaintiff , Mr Nkosinathi Mtwanambi and the
plaintiff herself , testified on behalf of her case.
The evidence of Mr Nkosinathi Mtwanambi:
[9] He testified that the plaintiff was one of his employees. He recruited her in
2009 and she started working in February 2010. He testified that she worked for his
previous company , Ihlathi Construction. He testified that he was the General
Manager of Ihlathi Construction, which closed in 2012. Furthermore, in 2010, the
Plaintiff was a first -aider, and she already received her training. He indicated that she
earned R5 000.00 per month with the applicable sliding scale and that there had not
been any issues with her performing her duties . His testimony included reference to
the toll first -aid work could exert on a person, thereby requiring a person to be 100%
fit.
[10] On account of the injuries sustained during the collision, she was airlifted to
Pelenomi Hospital in Bloemfontein. He testified that after the collision, the plaintiff
never returned to work as she was no longer fit to do so ; she is limping as is
physically unwell. He testified that , in his view, if it had not been for the accident , the
plaintiff would have had other opportunities , like becoming a Health officer, training
other first- aiders . By now she should have been in a higher position in the previous
company or even in his current company and would have been entitled to a better
salary . He testified that the take- home salary of the next position after a first -aider is
between R25 000.00 and R30 000.00.
The plaintiff’s evidence:
[11] She testified that she did not have any illnesses prior to the accident. She
sustained injuries to her right leg including her right hip and right knee. She also
indicated that she now has a scar on her face on account of the accident.
[12] She testified that after the collision she was transported to Smithfield Coetzee
Hospital and transferred to Pelonomi H ospital . While she was admitted, she
underwent an operation to her right hip and was referred to a physiotherapist to help
6
her walk with crutches. She was admitted on 27 October 2010 and discharged on 23
November 2010. Lastly, she was also referred to a nearby clinic for X -rays.
[13] She testified that she is unable to walk long distances . Sitting causes pain and
when it is cloudy or rainy, she has difficulty standing. She can no longer bend her
body properly is unable to exercise, as she was an avid jogger before the motor
vehicle collision. She testified that post -accident , she gets angry easily and suffers
from bouts of depression when she thinks that she will no longer be able to provide
her children what they want.
[14] She testified that the highest grade that she passed was her Grade 12 Senior
Certificate, which she obtained in 2004. After Grade 12 she stayed home for a few
years and managed to complete a course in Basic Ambulance Assistant Training.
This led to her obtaining her first job in 2015.
She further testified that at the time of the accident she worked at Ihlathi
Construction. She was employed as a Safety Representative and ear ned R5 000.00
per month. H er duties as a first -aider included tak ing care of the other employees
and to perform safety checks of the work site. However, on account of the injuries
sustained during the motor vehicle collision, she did not return to her employment.
[15] In 2015 she was contractually employed at Wongalethu for a year, to cook for
children. She earned an income of R1 100.00 per month but once her employment
ended upon the expiry of the contract, she was unemployed. S he gained similar
employment at Wongalethu in 2021 and earned R1 600.00 per month but suffered
the same fate once the contract expired.
[16] In 2023, she obtained a job at Driefontein Abattoir , working as a laundry girl
and is earning R4 500.00 per month. She is currently employed in this role but
testified that the injuries interfere with her job. W hen she does not feel well, she
reports at the office and they allow her to do work seated. However, sometimes there
is nothing that can be done as she is often required to use stairs during the course of her duties , which is painful.
7
The plaintiff’s expert evidence and medical evidence:
[17] The uncontested medical evidence pertaining to the nature and extent of the
injuries sustained by the plaintiff’s is as follows:
i) A fracture of the right femur;
ii) Patella -femoral joint injury of the right knee;
iii) Facial abrasions;
iv) Head injury – GCS 15/15;
v) Flexor tendon laceration of the right arm;
vi) Resultant post -traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) .
[18] The uncontested medical evidence pertaining to the p laintiff’s treatment is as
follows:
i) She was injured and taken by ambulance to Smithfield Hospital, where she
was seen, stabilized and thereafter transferred on the same day to Pelonomi
Hospital, where she was seen, admitted and treated for a period of about one month.
ii) She received an intramedullary locking nail fixation on 1 November 2010.
She was mobilized by the physiotherapist with crutches. She apparently lost a significant amount of blood and she had to receive blood transfusions.
Dr van den Bout’s uncontested evidence:
[19] Dr van den Bout’s uncontested evidence is:
i) the plaintiff presents with surgical scarring of the right hip and right knee;
ii) the plaintiff’s right knee was swollen, and crepitation’s c ould be felt. The
patella- femoral joint was positive for damage;
iii) The plaintiff present ed with a Grade 1 instability of the right medial collateral
ligament, and the anterior cruciate ligament was also lax compared to the left side ;
iv) The plaintiff’s pain was usually the result of tearing of the muscles that healed
by way of fibrosis;
v) Due to the plaintiff’s weaker quadriceps muscles and painful right knee, she is
unable to stand for long periods, walk for distances, climb many stairs or carry heavy objects. The plaintiff also experiences pain when sitting for prolonged periods with
8
the right knee in a bent position. These impairments will affect the plaintiff’s earning
capacity;
vi) The accident was a life- changing event for the plaintiff who is now an unequal
competitor in the open labour market and is dependent on a sympathetic employer;
vii) In his opinion, the plaintiff requires the removal of the internal fixation of the
right femur as well as an arthroscopy and debridement of the right knee. It is further
his view that the plaintiff requires a consultation, evaluation and treatment by a
psychologist for PTSD, if needed.
The uncontested evidence of Ms Steyn:
[20] Ms Steyn’s uncontested evidence is:
i) The plaintiff present ed with decreased movement in the right knee, pain in the
right knee with all associated movements, slightly decreased muscle strength in the right knee, mild swelling of the right knee and moderate swelling of the right thigh and right calve;
ii) The plaintiff’s functional residual capacity is limited to mid- range medium
work. She can occasionally stoop but no more than one third of the day. Her ability to engage in sitting, standing, kneeling, stairclimbing, walking and repetitive trunk movement should not exceed more than two thirds of the day;
iii) The plaintiff’s work as safety representative at the time of the accident was
light in nature, but there is a mismatch regarding constant walking. Considering the job requirements of the safety representative who constantly walks over uneven terrain on building sites, the plaintiff will struggle to sustain the inherent requirements
of such a job. She will require reasonable accommodations by an employer, which
may not be feasible;
iv) She may also be a safety liability. In the circumstances , the plaintiff is unable
to compete against uninjured individuals and will probably struggle to maintain work as a safety representative;
v) The plaintiff is able to work as a cook, as she works in a seated position for
most of the day. As a contract work er, she will always be at risk of her contracts not
being renewed. The plaintiff is limited to sedentary, light and mid- range medium
work, provided that she does not do prolonged walking, standing, stairclimbing, walk
9
over uneven terrains, kneeling or squatting. Although the plaintiff may cope with work
demands of sedentary, light and mid- range medium work, her productivity will be
negatively affected by her pain, which pain is compounded by her mood difficulties.
She remains at risk of losing her job due to her inability to compete fairly against her
healthy counterparts;
vi) Her working ability will be further affected negatively is her psychological
challenges of short -temperedness, irritability, depression and motivation are not well -
managed;
vii) The plaintiff is no longer able to attend a gym, which is a permanent loss to
her.
The uncontested evidence of Dr Cronwright:
[21] Dr Cronwright’s uncontested evidence is that:
i) His examination revealed surgical scarring of the right hip and right knee. D ue
to the plaintiff’s high body mass, plastic surgery is not indicated due to the
associated high incidents of complications . The internal fixation may require removal,
and should this happen, it will be possible to improve the appearance of the surgical
scarring at the same time by approximately 40%.
ii) The accident was significant for the p laintiff ; before the accident she was
employed, but now has problems with standing and walking for long periods and her
functional problems will almost certainly negative ly affect her future prospects.
Added to this, the p laintiff has been left with significant scarring of the right leg that
bothers her. This level of scarring in women is often problematic as it is often a
source of emotional distress.
Uncontested evidence of Dr Bezuidenhout:
[22] The uncontested evidence of Dr Bezuidenhout is:
i) Had it not been for the accident, the p laintiff could have continued to work in
her pre- accident position as a safety representative. She would have earned on the
lower quartile of the Patterson A1 level (as she did at the time of the accident) and could have progressed to working on Patterson B1/B2 level. It is speculated that the
she could have progressed at three to five years intervals and would have reached
10
her earning ceiling at the age of 45 years . Thereafter, she would have earned annual
infalationary increases until her retirement age of 65 years;
ii) Including the accident , the plaintiff is able to work as a general worker on the
Patterson A1 level, but she will probably only progress to a Patterson A2/ A3 level.
She will reach her career ceiling at the age of 45 years, whereafter she will earn
annual inflationary increases until her retirement age of 65 years;
iii) The plaintiff’s IQ testing revealed that she has low IQ abilities. She seemed to
be more introverted than an extrovert , and the p laintiff informed Dr Bezuidenhout
that she became short -tempered, irritable and impatient after the accident. She also
experiences negative feelings about herself;
iv) In ideal economic and employment circumstances , the plaintiff, at the age of
39 years, should have found herself in her adult life stage and in terms of her career,
she should have found herself moving from the advancement to maintenance stage of the general career development stages.
Uncontested report of Wim Loots Actuarial Consulting dated 10 October 2024:
[23] The uncontested report of Loots Actuaries:
i) The actuary took into consideration the report of Dr Bezuidenhout and
calculated the past uninjured income as R1 516 303.00 while the uninjured future
income amounted to R3 341 829.00, both totalling R4 858 132.00. The injured past
income was calculated as R32 400.00 and the future injured income was calculated as R2 489 966.00, thereby totalling R2 522 366.00. The total past loss of earnings is
calculated to be R1 483 903.00 and the total future loss of earnings is R851 863.0 0
The total loss of earnings is calculated to be R2 335 766.00. No contingencies were
applied in the calculation.
ii) The calculation was based on the assumption that the p laintiff remains
unemployed from 2022 and that she will secure employment mid- 2025.
[24] Upon my request , an updated report of Loots Actuaries , taking into account
the plaintiff’s employment in 2023 and 2024, was handed in. The actuaries applied
contingencies of 5/25% in respect of past and future uninjured income and
11
contingencies of 5/35% in respect of past and future injured income. The actuaries
calculated the total loss of earnings to be an amount of R1 614 597.00.
Loss of earnings:
[25] It is my considered view that the plaintiff succeeded in proving her claim for
past and future loss of earnings, with due regard to the uncontested evidence of Dr Bezuidenhout and Loots Actuaries. The remaining issue pertaining to the plaintiff’s
claim for loss of income is the contingency deductions.
[26] Counsel for the p laintiff submitted that I may take cognisance of the following
positive and negative factors when deciding the appropriate contingency deductions:
i) The plaintiff being 27 years old at the time of the accident;
ii) That the plaintiff’s job at the time of the accident in 2010 as a safety
representative at Ihlathi Construction was her first job since completing matric in
2004;
iii) The plaintiff has no documentary proof of her reported income at Ihlathi
Construction in the sum of R5 000.00 per month;
iv) The plaintiff, in her injured condition, attempted to mitigate her damages by
working as a cook, which is testament to her work ethic;
v) The opportunistic nature of the assumptions regarding the plaintiff’s uninjured
income;
vi) The opportunistic nature of the assumptions regarding the p laintiff’s injured
income;
vii) The possibility of mistakes having been made in the determination of the life
expectancy or earning life expectancy of the plaintiff;
viii) The likelihood that the Plaintiff could have worked beyond the age of 65 was it
not for the accident;
ix) The effects of the COVID- 19 pandemic ;
x) The likelihood of illness, inflammation and adjustment for cost-of-living
allowances;
xi) Accidents that may affect the p laintiff’s earning capacity and life expectancy;
xii) Circumstances that would increase or decrease the p laintiff’s cost of living;
12
xiii) Transportation cost, pension fund contributions, tax liability, loss of pension
and disability benefits;
xiv) The possibility that the p laintiff’s annual increases may have been more than
the CPI increases.
[27] Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that given the aforementioned factors and
in particular the p laintiff’s limited pre -accident work history, lack of documentary
proof regarding her pre- accident earnings as a safety representative and the
opportunistic nature of the p laintiff’s uninjured and injured career paths and earnings,
that a higher than normal contingency deduction will be justified in the
circumstances. I pause to mention that the latter submissions w ere made with due
regard to the actuar y report of 10 October 2024 which did not take into consideration
the income derived at Driefontein Abattoir.
[28] It was further submitted that a 25% contingency deduction in respect of the
past loss of earnings, a 35% contingency deduction in respect of uninjured future
loss of earnings and a 35% contingency deduction in respect of the injured future
loss of earnings will be appropriate.
[29] It was submitted that applying the aforesaid proposed contingency deductions
to the figures in Loots Actuar ies report dated 10 October 2024 will render a total
post-contingency deduction loss of a rounded- off sum of R1 660 000.00. It was
further submitted that the p laintiff’s income at Driefontein Abattoir of approximately
R60 000.00 ought to be deducted from the amount of R1 660 000.00 and that an
amount of R1 600 000.00 be granted in respect of the p laintiff’s claim for loss of
earnings.
[30] Taking counsel’s able submissions pertaining to the actuary report dated 10
October 2024 into consideration, as well as the updated actuary report, I am satisfied
that the amount of R 1 600 000.00 be awarded as loss of income.
General damages:
[31] In terms of the pre -trial minute dated 6 June 2024 and signed by the
defendant’s legal representative, the d efendant undertook to provide the p laintiff with
13
an interim offer in respect of general damages and future medical expenses on or
before 16 February 2024 .
0
[32] With reference to MEC for Economic Affairs, Environment and Tourism v
Kruizenga1 it was submitted that the admissions of fact made at the r ule 37
conference constitutes sufficient proof of those facts and that the rule 37 is thus of
critical importance in the litigation process and is the reason why a party in the absence of any special circumstances is not entitled to resile from any agreement deliberately reached at a rule 37 conference.
[33] I was also referred to the decision of AMCU obo Wayise and O thers v
Sibanyane Gold (Pty) Ltd
2 where it was held that:
‘A signed pre-trial minute is a consensual document which binds the parties and the Court in
the same way as pleadings. It obliges the Court to decide only the issues set out therein.
This is particularly so in that the positions deliberately taken by the parties in their respective
pleadings are taken to have been reconciled or compromised in the Minute. It is against the
purpose and legal consequences of pre-trial minutes that the Courts ordinarily take a dim
view of parties attempting to resile from them . . .’3
It was further held:
‘To the extent that a party seeks to resile from an agreement deliberately reached at the pre-
trial conference, special circumstances would have to be placed before Court.’4
[34] It was submitted by c ounsel for the plaintiff that the defendant accepted that
the plaintiff sustained a serious injury, thereby entitling her claim to general
damages. With due reference to the above cited case law, I agree with the latter ’s
submission and it is my considered view that the plaintiff is entitled to claim general
damages. Counsel for the plaintiff assisted the Court with case law5 applicable to the
1 MEC for Economic Affairs, Environment and Tourism v Kruizenga [2010] ZASCA 58; [2010] 4 All SA
23 (SCA) para 6.
2 AMCU obo Wayise and others v Sibanyane Gold (Pty) Ltd [2024] ZALCJHB 355.
3 Ibid para 20.
4 Ibid para 21.
5 Sefuthi v Road Accident Fund [2022] ZASFSHC 268 (Sefuthi ); Litseo v Road Accident Fund 2019
ZAFSHC 52; Khumalo v Road Accident Fund [2010] ZAKZDHC 5 ; Mpondo v Road Accident Fund
[2011] ZAECGHC 24; Kaduku v Road Accident Fund [2017] ZAGPPHC 432 ( Kaduku) ; Ncama v Road
Accident Fund [2014] ZAECPEHC 74 ; Fekenisi v Member of the Executive Council for the
Department of Health [2020] ZAECBHC 16 ; Daniels v Road Accident Fund 2000 QOD C3- 1 (C).
14
facts of this case. I will not repeat the totality of it here, but will highlight two cases
that stood out for me.
[35] In Sefuthi v Road Accident Fund6 the plaintiff sustained a right femur fracture,
5 cm laceration of the forehead, facial abrasions , abrasions of the left arm, long
contusion, rib fracture and a fracture of the right knee. The p laintiff underwent an
open reduction and internal fixation. She suffer ed from chronic pain of the right hip
and right knee, and she struggled with prolonged standing and walking. The plaintiff
had unsightly disfiguring scarring, most notably on her face and right hip. The
experts noted an antalgic gait and that she would require orthopaedic built -up shoes
to address the discrepancy. The experts also established that there were signs of
post-traumatic osteoarthritis and that she would require a total knee replacement and
subsequent revision knee replacements. The court awarded a present -day value of
R763 000.00 in respect of general damages.
[36] In Kaduku v Road Accident Fund7 the plaintiff sustained a moderately severe
head injury (from which he recovered without any sequelae) , a laceration of the scalp
and a fracture of the left tibia and fibula. He was treated for the head injury and
underwent an open reduction and internal fixation of the left tibial fracture. The plaintiff had difficulty standing for long periods, walking far distances or do any
prolonged weight bearing and strenuous exercise. Before the accident, he worked as a tiler , but after the accident , struggled to perform all aspects of his work. The court
awarded a present -day value of R916 000.00 in respect of general damages.
[37] With due regard to the law applicable to the facts in casu , the conclusion
must be that the amount of R800 000.00 for general damages will restore justice to
the plaintiff.
Costs:
[38] It is my considered view that there is no reason to deviate from the standard
practice to award a successful party – party and party costs. I t is further my
considered view that the High Court scale B is the appropriate scale in view of the
6 Ibid.
7 Kaduku fn 5.
15
complexity and magnitude of issues and documentation, including the extent of the
Plaintiff’s injuries as well as actuarial principles and contingency deductions.
Orders:
[39] In the result the following orders are granted:
1. The defendant shall pay the p laintiff the sum of R2 400 000.00 (two million
four hundred thousand rand) in terms of quantum, set out as follows:
1.1 Loss of earnings R1 600 000.00
General damages R 800 000.00
SUBTOTAL R2 400 000.00
1.2 The defendant shall pay the amount of R2 400 000.00 (two million four
hundred thousand rand) within one hundred and eighty (180) days of date hereof into the plaintiff’s attorneys trust account. The plaintiff’s trust account details are as
follows:
Account holder : Van der Spuy (Cape Town)
Branch : Nedbank
Branch code : 118 602
Type of account : Trust account
Account number : 118[…]
Reference number : LW/MAT32944
1.3 Interest shall accrue on such outstanding amount as per the Prescribed Rate
of Interest Act 55 of 1975, as amended, per annum, calculated from due date, as per the Road Accident Fund Act, until the date of payment.
2. The defendant will pay the p laintiff’s taxed or agreed party and party costs
16
including but not limited to the costs as set out herein below:
2.1 The reasonable qualification and reservation fees of the p laintiff’s following
experts:
(vii) Dr Anton van den Bout, Orthopaedic Surgeon;
(viii) Dr N Kruger, Radiologist;
(ix) Dr Keith Cronwright, Plastic Surgeon;
(x) Ms Frizelna Steyn, Occupational Therapist;
(xi) Dr Leon Bezuidenhout, Industrial Psychologist;
(xii) Wim Loots (Actuarial Consulting, Actuary).
2.2 The fees of counsel in terms of rule 67A(3) (a) read with rule 69(7) on Scale B
which costs shall include, but is not limited to, the drafting of heads of argument and
trial date of 11 February 2025.
2.3 In the event of default on the payment of costs, interest shall accrue on such
outstanding amount at the statutory mora rate on the date of taxation/settlement of
the bill of costs , as per the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act 55 of 1975, per annum,
calculated from due date until the date of payment.
De Kock, AJ
Appearances:
For Plaintiff : A Heerink
Instructed by : Van der Spuy Attorneys
Cape Town
For Defendant : M Booysen
c/o Office of the State Attorney
Bloemfontein