IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Not Reportable / Reportable
Case No: 5750/2021
In the matter between:
VENTER:RUBEN APPLICANT
And
THE ROAD ACCIDENT FUND RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT:
DELIVERED:
Daniso, J APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
The judgment was delivered by email to the parties and
release to SAFLI I. It shall be deemed to have been delivered
at 14h00 on 14 April 2025
[1] The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order of this
court delivered on 12 December 2024 revised on 15 January 2025.
2
[2] In terms of the order, judgment was granted in favour of the applicant on the
following terms:
"1 ....
2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the sum of R3 586 820.69 (Three Million
Five Hundred and Eighty Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty Rand and Sixty
Nine Cents) within 180 (one hundred and eighty) days hereof, in respect of the
Plaintiffs claim against the Defendant for the following heads of damages :
2. 1. Past Hospital and Medical Expenses
which amount is calculated as follows: R413 708.99
2.1.1. R551 611.00
2.1.2. Less 25% liability apportionment:
(R137 903.00)
2.1.3. = R413 708.99
2.2. Loss of Earnings/Earning Capacity
which amount is calculated as follows: R 3173111.70
2.2.1.
2.2.2.
2.2.3.
2.2.4.
2.2.5.
2.2.6.
2.2.7.
2.2.8. Agreed nett value of past loss of earnings:
(R59 716.00)
Gross value of pre-morbid future income:
R14 892 875.00
Less 40% contingency deduction:
(R5 957 150.00)
= Nett value of pre-morbid future income:
RB 935 725. 00
Gross value of post-morbid future income:
R7 741989.00
Less 40% contingency deduction :
(R3 096 796. 60)
= Nett value of post-morbid future income:
R4 645 193.40
Total Loss= R3 173111.70
2.2.8.1.
2.2.8.2.
2.2.8.3.
2.2.8.4.
2.2.8.5.
2.2.8.6. 3
Nett value of past loss of income:
(R59 716.00)
Plus: Nett value of pre-morbid future
income: RB 935 725.00.00
Less: Nett value of post-morbid future
income: R4 645 193. 40
= R4 230 815.60
Less 25% liability apportionment:
(Rt 057 703. 90)
=R3173111.70 ... "
[3] The application is unopposed and is, by consent of the applicant, determined
on the basis of written heads of argument.
[4] In the grounds of appeal, including the heads of argument, the applicant directs
this application at a portion of the order, paragraphs : 2.1.3; 2.1.4; 2.1.5; 2.1.9.2 and
2.1.9.6 as well as paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment.
[5] It is the applicant's case that this court erred in its conclusions as deliberated in
paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment which resulted in its application of a 40%
contingency deduction in respect of the applicant's pre-morbid future income scenario
instead of the standard or accepted 20% contingency deduction. Based on these
reasons, the applicant contends that the full bench of this division "will probably only
apply a pre-morbid future income contingency deduction of 20% or alternatively , will
probably not apply as high of a pre-morbid contingency deduction (i.e. 40%) ... "
[6] The principles governing applications of this nature are trite: I am only enjoined
to grant leave to appeal if the applicant sets out facts which establish not just a mere
possibility of success in the appeal but a measure of certainty that another court would
4
render a different judgment than the one impugned or the existence of some or other
compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.1
[7] I am not persuaded that the applicant has set out proper grounds for the relief
he seeks. Inexplicably, in respect of paragraph 2.1.3 the applicant seeks leave to
appeal the order that he sought (see para 19 of the judgment) ..
[8] There are no paragraphs 2.1.4; 2.1.5; 2.1.9.2 and 2.1.9.6 in the impugned order
that aside, I am of the view that in my judgment I have fully addressed the reasons for
my findings pertaining to the percentage of the contingenc ies to be applied in this
matter.
[9] With regard to the grievance against what is deliberated in paragraphs 12 and
13 of the judgment , it is tested law that an appeal can only be noted against the
substantive order made by a Court and not against the reasons for judgment.2
[1 O] I am also not persuaded that there is any other reason warranting a hearing of
this appeal. In the result, I make the following order:
ORDER
1s17(1)(a) (i) or (ii) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013; Ramakatsa and Others v African Congress and Another
(742/2019) (2021) ZASCA 31 {31 March 2021).
2 Western Johannesburg Rent Board and Another v Ursula Mansions (Pty) Ltd 1948 (3} SA 353 (A) at 355.
On behalf of the applicant:
Instructed by:
On behalf of the respondent:
Instructed by: Adv. HJ Cilliers SC
A Wolmarans INC
BLOEMFONTEIN
Ms. C. Bornman
THE ST ATE ATTORNEY
BLOEMFONTEIN 5