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
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO : 38039/2013
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
05 June 2025
K. La M Manamela
In the matter between:
MABOTE, MALEHLOHONOLO SARAH Plaintiff
and
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Defendant
DATE OF JUDGMENT : This judgment is issued by the Judge whose name is
reflected herein and is submitted electronically to the parties/their legal representatives by email. The judgment is further uploaded to the electronic file of this matter on Caselines by the Judge’s secretary . The date of the judgment is
deemed to be 0 5 June 2025 .
JUDGMENT
KHASHANE MANAMELA , AJ
2
Introduction
[1] The plaintiff, M s Mmalehlohonolo Sarah Mabote, born on 30 November 1977,
was injured in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 17 April 2010 at
approximately 14h 00. She was a passenger in a van or bakkie motor vehicle with
registration details J […] (‘the first insured vehicle’) which collided with another motor
vehicle with registration details W[…] (‘the second insured vehicle’) on Rhodes
Avenue, Nigel , Johannesburg.
[2] As a result of the accident, the plaintiff sustained injuries and/or has sequelae
as follows: (a) head injury ; (b) painful back and neck ; (c) lacerations on the forehead ;
(d) fracture of tibia and fibula, and (e) abrasions on the right hand. According to the
plaintiff , she consequently, suffered damages , due to the injuries and their sequelae,
as stated below .
[3] Summons was issued on behalf of the plaintiff on 10 October 2013 against
the Road Accident Fund (‘the RAF’) , the defendant herei n, in accordance with the
provisions of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 (‘the RAF Act’) . The plaintiff
claims compensat ion for the damages she allegedly suffered due to the accident .
She attributes the negligent driving of the driver of the second insured vehicle to be
the sole cause of the accident . In her particulars of claim to the summons the plaintiff
reflected the following heads of damages : (a) future medical and hospital expenses ;
(b) future loss of earnings and/or earning capacity ; (c) general damages ; (d) p ast
medical expenses , and (e) past loss of earnings . The action was defended by the
RAF and, ultimately, the matter ripened for a trial .
[4] The m atter was set down for trial on 27 February 2025. Mr KT Ntsewa
appeared for the plaintiff and M r M Madasele appeared for the RAF. The trial
commenced with a preliminary issue by way of the plaintiff’s proposed amendment.
The plaintiff had delivered a notice to amend her plaintiff ’s particulars of claim , about
seven days before the trial, on 18 February 2025, but had effected the amendment
3
before expiry of the ten -day period allowed by Uniform Rule 28(2)1 of this Court for
objections to proposed amendment s. The RAF’s objection was raised, primarily, to
address the non- compliance or irregularity and unfairness of the plaintiff’s conduct in
this regard. Mr Ntsewa for the plaintiff tried his earnest to explain the late delivery of
the notice and premature amendment. His explanation included that the proposed
amendment was to adjust the figures stated in the particulars of claim to those
appearing in the latest actuarial calculations received by the plaintiff on 21 January 2025.
2 Although, it appeared that the plaintiff through her attorneys may have slightly
delayed on the amendment , I considered the delay not inordinate or unreasonable;
that the RAF has indicated no prejudice of a nature and extent as would warrant the
rejection of the proposed amendment. I ruled - extempor aneously – that the
amendment is allowed . Also, the RAF is to be held 100% liable for the plaintiff’s
proven and/or agreed damages.
[5] The trial proceeded on the issues relating to quantum , specifically in relat ion
to loss of earnings and/or earning capacity, and future medical and hospital
expenses. The i ssues relating to general damages are to be postponed sine die, as
the RAF has not made an election regarding the serious nature of the plaintiff’s
injuries . After listening to closing oral argument or submissions by counsel , I
reserved this judgment .
Brief background
[6] For a proper context to the matter , a brief narration of the issues in the
background of the matter is necessary. This will be on the basis of the facts which
are common cause between the parties , or not disputed.
1 Rule 28 of the Uniform Rules reads in the material part: ‘ (1) Any party desiring to amend any
pleading or document other than a sworn statement, filed in connection with any proceedings,
shall notify all other parties of his intention to amend and shall furnish particulars of the
amendment.
(2) The notice referred to in subrule (1) shall state that unless written objection to the proposed
amendment is delivered within 10 days of delivery of the notice, the amendment will be
effected .’ [underlining added]
2 Munro Forensic Actuaries report, dated 15 January 2025, CaseLines (‘CL’) 014 -1 to 014- 5.
4
[7] As stated above, t he plaintiff was born o n 30 November 1977 and was injured
in the motor vehicle accident on 17 April 201 0, while being ferried as a passenger .
She was about 3 3 years old at the time of the accident and about 48 years of age at
the time of trial .
[8] The plaintiff ’s highest academic qualification is grade 8 (although Dr MEC
Kalane, the clinical neuropsychologist stated it as grade 10, but counsel clarified this
to refer to F orm 1 (i.e. grade 8) ) obtained from Lebohang Bongani Secondary School
in 1996. According to the medical reports the plaintiff ’s attributed her early school
termination to financial constraints. But, the industrial psychologist lamented the
absence of school reports , as would appear below .
[9] Following the accident the plaintiff was admitted at the Heidelberg hospital
where her Glasgow Coma Scale or GCS was recorded at 15/15 upon admission.
Three days later , on 20 April 2010, s he was transferred to Natalspruit hospital. She
was hospitalised for a period of about 9 weeks following the accident.
[10] The plaintiff ’s employment history is recorded as follows by the occupational
therapist .
3 After he r grade 8 in 1996, the plaintiff obtained work as a farm worker
which she lost through retrenchment . For a period of about six months in 1999, she
was a general worker for the municipality until her contract ended. Then there is a
gap for a part of 1999 of about six months until 2000. Between 2001 and 2002, the
plaintiff was a cleaner at D unson Park. Again there is a gap for the years 2003 to
2004. In 2005, it is reported that the plaintiff was again a general worker
(construction related) for the municipality until her contract ended. This is followed by
another gap for the years 2006 to 2009. Then, for the years 2010 to 2011 the plaintiff
worked for a construction company directing trucks until she quit for accident related difficulties , it is reported. But, in some reports the flag- waving position at Group 5
Construction (‘Group 5’) is stated as for the period 2012 to 2013 at R 1 500 per week
and is stated as having terminated due to the ending of the contract .
4 But, the issues
relating to her remuneration do not seem to correlate with what the work history
stated above. Her earnings from 2000 to 2010 range from R 600 per month through
3 Pars [22]-[24] below, on further details from the occupational therapist’s report.
4 Report of the O ccupational Therapist (‘OT R eport ’) par 6.1, CL 013-87.
5
R3 500 per month to R1 500 per week (i.e. R6 000 per month) .5 The latter peak in
the plaintiffs income is attributed to her position as a flag lady at Group 5 between
2012 and 2013. She, reportedly, lost this job when a contract ended. In some of the
reports it is stated that the plaintiff was unemployed at the time of the accident. She
has been unemployed since 2012. The plaintiff has no formal or informal skills
training or any vocational training.
Evidence and submissions (discussed)
General
[11] The plaintiff underwent assessment by medical experts retained on her
behalf. The experts , subsequently , filed expert reports with regard to the injuries
sustained by the plaintiff and their sequelae.
[12] The plaintiff’s injuries in the medical reports are stated as follows: (a) mild
head injury with l oss of consciousness ; (b) collarbone fracture ; (c) u lnar/humerus
fracture ; (d) f ractured right radius ; (e) abrasions and lacerations on right arm and
hand; (f) l acerations on forehead a nd the occipito- parietal region. No reports were
filed on behalf of the RAF nor did the RAF tender oral evidence of any witness .
Actuarial calculations - quantif ying the plaintiff ’s loss of earnings or earning capacity -
were filed on behalf of the plaintiff , as alluded to above.
[13] Mr Ntsewa for the plaintiff, at the commencement of the trial, moved an
application on behalf of the plaintiff in terms of R ule 38(2) of the Uniform Rules to
proceed on the basis of the medic o-legal reports filed by the plaintiff and their
contents confirmed under oath by the experts. The RAF did not object to the
application and, thus, it was granted .
Independent Medical Assessor
[14] Dr N Mogoru, an independent medical assessor, was retained on behalf of the
plaintiff. He ass essed the plaintiff on 20 April 2016, just over 4 years from the date of
5 OT Report par 6.1, CL 013-86 to 013- 87.
6
the accident. He confirmed that the plaintiff has suffered a mild traumatic brain injury
with loss of consciousness and the fractures of the right ulna and radius . The
medical assessor , further, noted that the right radius has healed . In addition, the
plaintiff is reported to have abrasions with scars considered cosmetically unsightly
(albeit with d eference to the plastic and reconstructive surgeon) ; memory problems
due to neuro- physical injuries , as specified in this expert ’s report ; right collarbone
protru sion, and persistent pain in the right arm.
[15] Regarding the orthopaedic injuries it was noted that the orthopaedic hardware
was still in situ . Her whole person impairment (‘WPI’) was scored by Dr Mogoru at
14%, but it is opined that the plaintiff's injuries will not lead to permanent disabilities .
Specialist Neurosurgeon
[16] The plaintiff was assessed by Prof P Lekgwara, a specialist neurosurgeon, on
7 February 2023, about 12 years and 10 months from the date of the accident . The
opinions expressed by Prof Lekgwara, regarding the plaintiff included the following.
[17] The plaintiff suffered a mild traumatic brain injury (grade 3 concussion) , and
has not able neuropsychological problems. She suffer s from post- concussion
headaches , as despite it being over 12 years since the plaintiff was involved in the
accident (at the date of the assessment by Prof Lekgwara) and, therefore,
spontaneous resolution of the headaches is not expected. Prof Lekgwara scored the
plaintiff ’s WPI at 23%.
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeon [18] Dr K Segwapa, a plastic and reconstructive surgeon, also assessed the
plaintiff on 7 February 2023 and, thereafter , expressed opinions including what
appears next. The plaintiff suffered excessively and continue to suffer due to the
accident. Although, she has reached maximum medical improvement (or MMI) since
the accident, she is still severe ly permanent ly disfigure d, as she has permanent
scars whose location and the fact that she is a woman, raises her WPI to 12% (only
for scarring ), according to Dr Segwapa . The plaintiff’s case in this regard is more
7
levant to general damages , the determination of which is to be deferred, as stated
above.
Clinical Neuropsychologist
[19] The plaintiff was also assessed by Dr MEC Kalane, a clinical
neuropsychologist , also on 7 February 2023, regarding the impact of her head injury .
Dr Kalane made findings and expressed opinions which included what appears next .
[20] The plaintiff suffered a significant head injury (stated as moderate to severe
head injury ) borne by several factors , as follows : (a) direct impact sustained to the
forehead, face and back of her head; (b) reported loss of consciousness , which
despite the GCS score of 15/15, which it is opined, does not negate the seriousness
of her injury , and (c) post-concussive complaints.
[21] Dr Kalane , further, interpreted t he plaintiff’s assessment results to be
indicative of limitations in simple attention, working memory, processing speed,
verbal memory, visual problem -solving, and overall executive functioning. These
cognitive changes , the clinical neuropsychologist opined, are likely due to the head
injury sequelae, especially given the absence of any pre- morbid cognitive challenges
on the part of the plaintiff, and the presence of emotional disturbances following the accident. Also, that the emotional disturbances and neurocognitive decline are likely
to affect t he plaintiff’s occupational functioning.
Occupational Therapist
[22] Ms MOL Mashishi, an occupational therapist , assessed the plaintiff on 8
February 2023. Her views and opinions in relation to the plaintiff include what follows
next. The plaintiff, reportedly, experiences difficulty carrying heavy objects and this
triggers pain in the right upper limb. Other challenges reported by the plaintiff to the
occupational therapist are as follows : (a) poor vision; (b) forgetfulness ; (c) pain in
right forearm when doing strenuous work; (d) headaches ; (e) pain and swelling in
right knee and leg, and ( f) pain in the back region. This expert concluded that, the
plaintiff ex perience is a limitation in the execution of instrumental activities of daily
living , due to injuries sustained from the accident.
8
[23] Regarding the plaintiff ’s work potential, Ms Mashishi noted the academic
qualifications of the plaintiff and the fact that the plaintiff has no formal or informal skills training . She also had regard to the plaintiff ’s work history. The occupational
therapist attributed the plaintiff ’s inability to maintain the post -morbid position of a
flag-lady to the ongoing symptomology in her right arm. She is thereby rendered a
vulnerable competitor in her field of operation when compared to her uninjured
counterpart s. The expert is of the opinion that the plaintiff presented with the residual
work capacity to actively engage in sedentary to light strength requirement
workloads. But these, among others , should exclude work of a repetitive nature or
sustained above shoulder or overhead level r each action. She is therefore suitable
for occupations operating in an accommodative work environment in the open labour market with provisions of reasonable accommodation for her cognitive and physical
deficit s. Her residual capacity indicates that she is functioning at a diminished level
of physical functioning when compared to her pre-accident level of functioning. Her
educational and vocational history indicate s that she was always reliant on her
physical strength in order to secure a viable employment. Therefore, her vocational
potential has been compromised by accident injuries. She is restricted to sedentary
work. As a result the plaintiff is expected to experience prolonged periods of
unemployment, although the occupational therapist defers to the opinion of the
industrial psychologist on the plai ntiff’s loss of earnings .
[24] Counsel for the plaintiff , submitted that the plaintiff has been sympathetically
employed post-morbid. And at 38 years of age she has no prospect s.
Industrial Psychologist [25] Ms Mirriam Magethi , an industrial psychologist , assessed the plaintiff on 5
December 2024 and found and/or opined as follows. The plaintiff was unable to
return to work as a construction worker . She was replaced at all places she worked
following her recuperation and return to work. She lives with pain and walks with an antalgic gait. I have to point out here that Prof Lekgwara had reported the plaintiff’s
9
gait as normal , after he examined her, almost two years earlier , on 7 February
2023.6
[26] Ms Ma gethi agrees with Ms Mashishi, the occupational therapist, that the
plaintiff has the following deficits or challenges : (a) forgetful ness ; (b) concentrat ion;
(c) climb ing stairs ; (d) walk ing for long distances ; (e) lift ing heavy objects ; (f)
standing for long, and (g) walking as speedily and efficiently as she has to or wants
to. Ms Ma gethi , further, is of the view that the plaintiff is unfit to continue working as
a construction worker and to compete with her able- bodied peers in the intensive
labour and physical strength category, her probable career area.
[27] The plaintiff’s highest academic attainment is grade 8 and, thus, she relies
solely on her physical strength. She cannot do sedentary work , given her lack of the
requisite skills in this area, as she has only being exposed to heavy duty job
construction work . According to the industrial psychologist , the plaintiff would retire
earlier that the retirement age of 60 in her current condition, in the event that she secures sympathetic employ ment .
[28] Post-morbid, the plaintiff was able to secure temporary jobs occasionally, but
was unable to sustain them due to her persistent pain and inability to carry out her
work due to her ulnar condition. Also, e mployment prospects are limited by the
plaintiff’s advanced a ge at 48 years or the likelihood of the plaintiff competing
successfully with young and able bodied peers . But, e ven if the plaintiff were to find
employment, she will not be able to compete with other able- bodied peers, given her
age and experience.
[29] Although, the plaintiff was unemployed at the time of the accident, she
reportedly was awaiting to commence working as a general worker at G roup 5. She ,
reportedly, was going to be remunerated at R 6 000 per month and it was a two year
employment contract. She could not do so due to the accident. In August 2 010 she,
reportedly , secured employment on a contract basis as general worker at K night
Construction and P lant CC, which company was a subcontractor to Group 5. Upon
6 Report of the Specialist Neurosurgeon par B, CL 013 -26.
10
ending of t he latter em ployment , the plaintiff has since been unemployed. But, the
industrial psychologist could not obtain any collateral information from the plaintiff
and, also, tried her earnest to contact G roup 5 in November 2024 from telephone
numbers she had obtained from the internet , but in vain. When the industrial
psychologist contacted the plaintiff , in November 2024, s he confirmed that she has
been unemployed since 2011. I must point out that this is contrary to her
employment as a ‘flag lady’ at Group 5, as reported by the occupational therapist.7
Actuari al calculat ions
[30] Munro Forensic Actuaries calculat ed the plaintiff’s potential loss of earnings in
terms of which the plaintiff is projected to retire at the age of 65. The information
underlying the calculation is set out in the report.
8 The RAF Amendment Act cap is
reported to have no bearing on the calculation.
[31] The plaintiff’s total loss of earnings is estimated to be in the total amount of
R1 969 835 as at 1 February 2025. This amount is calculated as follows:
[31.1] past loss: for an estimated plaintiff’s pre-morbid income of R1 039 300,
a contingency deduction at 5% is effected to arrive at R987 335, whilst no
deduction is made to the post-morbid income of R33 900. The result when
deducting R33 900 from R987 335 is the amount of R 953 435 for the
plaintiff’s past loss.
[31.2] future loss : for an estimated pre-morbid income of R1 548 000, a 15%
contingency deduction is effected to arrive at pre- morbid net loss of R1
315 800. On the estimated post -morbid income of R 399 200, a 25%
contingency deduction is effected to arrive at a post -morbid net loss of
R299 400. The result when deducting R 299 400 from R1 315 800 is the
amount of R1 016 400 for the plaintiff’s future loss.
[31.3] when R 953 435 ( for past loss) is added to R1 016 400 ( for future loss),
the result is the amount of R 1 969 835 for the plaintiff’s estimated total loss.
7 OT Report par 6.1 at 013- 87. See also par [10] above.
8 Actuarial report par 3, CL 014- 2.
11
[32] Mr Ntsewa for the plaintiff fully associate with the above calculation, save for
a, rather tentative, minor concession regarding the past loss. He conceded that the re
was plenty of interrupt ions in the plaintiff’s employment history and for this he would
go along with a further 10% deduction to the amount of R 953 435 for past loss .
[33] Mr M Madasele for the RAF highlighted the apparent contradictions in the
medical reports filed on behalf of the plaintiff. His submissions included the following
in this regard. The plaintiff was able to acquire or secure employment after the accident according to the expert evidence. Counsel, further, highlighted the five year
gap in unemployment in 2005.
9 He also lament ed the lack of collateral information.
Counsel, further , argued that there is no pas t loss, when consideration is given to the
fact that the plaintiff had been employed on contract basis. With regard to the future loss, counsel expressed no problem with the estimations, save that he su bmitted that
a contingency deduction of 45% be effected to the pre- morbid estimated future
income of R1 548 000.
Conclusion and costs
[34] I accept that the plaintiff sustained injuries from the accident , which took place
over 15 years ago, on 17 April 201 0. I also accept that the plaintiff suffers from
cognitive and physical deficit s arising from the accident affecting her ability and
capacity to be employed in her pre- morbid type of work and sustain such
employment as she did pre- morbidly. I can only wonder why when summons was
issued promptly in 2013 the plaintiff was only medically assessed for her claim, save
for the so -called independent medical assessor, only in February 2023. But, as the
medical experts did not express a view on the relevance of this to (or its bearing o n)
the plaintiff’s injuries and/or their sequelae, nothing would turn on this .
[35] Considering the facts and evidence in this matter, some of which appear
above, I would make an award in the total amount of R 1 451 280, calculated as
follows:
9 Par [10] above, where it is stated that the employment stint in 2005 is followed by another gap
for the years 2006 to 2009.
12
[35.1] past loss: for the estimated plaintiff’s pre- morbid income of R1 039 300,
I will effect a contingency deduction at 4 0% (significantly, due to the fact that
the plaintiff, pre- morbid, had contract -based or non- continuous employment ,
which cannot be fully discounted as a probability for her post -morbid scenario)
to arrive at R 623 580, whilst I will make no deduction to the limited post-
morbid income of R33 900. The result when deducting R33 900 from R 623
580 is the amount of R 589 680 for the plaintiff’ s past loss.
[35.2] future loss : for an estimated pre- morbid income of R1 548 000, I will
effect a 25% contingency deduction to arrive at a pre-morbid future net loss of
R1 161 000. On the estimated post -morbid income of R 399 200, I will accept
the suggested 25% contingency deduction to arrive at a post -morbid future
net loss of R 299 400. The result when deducting R 299 400 from R1 161 000
is the amount of R 861 600 for the plaintiff’s future loss. The reasons for the
approach in this part are the same as those for the plaintiff’s past loss. The
accident cannot be solely blamed for the plaintiff’s future post -morbid loss , as
the plaintiff never had stable or continuous employment even without the
injuries from the accident. Also, the plaintiff (although it is appreciated that it
was not without challenges ) was able to secure employment , post-morbid,
which she lost due to the employment contract(s) coming to an end.
[35.3] when the amount of R 589 680 (for past loss) is added to the amount of
R861 600 (for future loss), the result is the amount of R1 451 280 for the
plaintiff’s estimated total loss.
[36] I consider the amount of R1 451 280, to be awarded, to be fair and equitable
on the facts and evidence in this matter. I also consider established the plaintiff’s
claim regarding the necessity of her future medical and hospital treatment and, thus, the RAF will be directed to furnish an undertaking regarding payment of the relevant expenses as provided for by section 17(4)(a) of the RAF Act. Costs will follow this
result at party and party scale, at scale B.
Order
[37] In the premises, I grant an order in t he following terms , that:
13
1. the Defendant is liable for 100% of the Plaintiff’s proven and/ or agreed
damages resulting from the injuries she sustained in a motor vehicle collision
which occurred on the 17th April 2010;
2. the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff’s Attorney the sum of R1 451 280
(one million four hundred and fifty- one thousand two hundred and
eighty rand) in settlement of the Plaintiff’s claim for loss of earnings arising
out of the motor vehicle collision on 17th April 2010 in which the Plaintiff was
injured;
3. the abovementioned amount is made up as follows:
3.1 general damages (to be postponed sine die ): Nil;
3.2 past & future loss of earnings : R1 451 280.00 , and
3.3 total R1 451 280.00.
4. the Plaintiff nominates , as the account into which the amount in 2 of this
order must be paid, the following trust account:
ACCOUNT NAME : C[ …] N[…] A[…]
BANK : STANDARD BANK
ACCOUNT NO : 0 […]
BRANCH NO : 0 […]
REF : M […]
5. the Defendant is ordered to furnish to the Plaintiff’s Attorney an
undertaking in terms of section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of
1996 for 100% of the costs of the future accommodation of the Plaintiff in a
hospital or nursing home or the treatment of or the rendering of a service or
the supplying of goods to the Plaintiff arising out of injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff in the motor vehicle collision that occurred on 17th April 2010, in terms
of which undertaking the Defendant will be obliged to compensate the Plaintiff
in respect of the said costs after the costs have been incurred and on proof
thereof.
6. if the Defendant defaults to pay the amount stipulated in 2 of this order
within 180 days from date of this order, the Plaintiff will be entitled to recover
interest at the rate prescribed by the Minister in accordance with the
Prescribed Rate of Interest Act 55 of 1975 per annum from date of judgment
to date of final payment ;
14
7. the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff’s party and party costs on the High
Court scale either as taxed or agreed, which costs will inter alia include
7.1 the costs of counsel , at scale B;
7.2. the costs consequent to the preparation and obtaining of all medico legal
and actuary reports that were served on or provided to the Defendant , and
7.3. the costs of making all the trial bundles.
8. the party and party costs on the High Court scale either as taxed or
agreed shall include any costs attendant upon obtaining of payment referred
to in paragraph 2 of this order , subject to the following conditions:
8.1. the Plaintiff shall, in the event that costs are not agreed, serve the notice
of taxation on the D efendant; and
8.2. the Plaintiff shall allow the Defendant 14 (fourteen) court days to make
payment of the taxed costs.
9. should payment of the costs not be made timeously, the Plaintiff will be
entitled to recover interest at a rate prescribed by the Minister in accordance
with the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act 55 of 1975 per annum from the date
of allocator to date of final payment ;
10. issues relating to general damages are postponed sine die, and
11. it is recorded here that t he Court was informed that there is no valid
contingency fee agreement that was entered into between the Plaintiff and the
instructing attorney.
Khashane La M. Manamela
Acting Judge of the High Court
Date s of Hearing: 27 February 2025
Date of Judgment : 05 June 2025
Appearances:
For the P laintiff : Mr K.T Ntsewa
Instructed by : Connie Ntsoko Attorneys , Pretoria
For the Defendant : Mr M Madasele
Defendant’s Attorneys : State Attorney , Johannesburg