About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2025
>>
[2025] ZAGPJHC 557
|
|
Ndebele v Road Accident Fund (11404/2022) [2025] ZAGPJHC 557 (13 May 2025)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL
DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO
: 11404/2022
DATE
:
13-05-2025
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO.
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO.
(3)
REVISED.
In
the matter between
MAXWELL
NDEBELE
Applicant
and
ROAD ACCIDENT
FUND
Respondent
JUDGMENT
WEIDEMAN,
AJ
: The collision from which this
claim arose, occurred on 19 December 2019, at which stage the
plaintiff, then a minor, was a pedestrian.
The aspect of liability
had previously been resolved through a concession by the defendant on
13 April 2022. The documentation
in respect thereof appear on
CaseLines 02-1.
In paragraph 7 of the
particulars of claim the injuries are pleaded as follows:
1.
fracture of the right clavicle;
2.
multiple abrasions.
In paragraph 9 of the
particulars of claim the claim is set out as follows:
Past medical
expenses
R5 000.
Future medical
expenses R50 000.
Future loss of
income
R1 590 400.
General
damages
R800 000.
At the commencement of
the hearing of the matter, counsel indicated that the claim for past
medical expenses had been abandoned
and that the minor does not
qualify for general damages. The remaining heads of damage of future
medical expenses and future loss
of income were before court.
The medico legal reports
filed of record and which have been placed before court by way of a
rule 38(2) application, moved from
the bar, confirmed that future
medical treatment may be required as a result of the sequelae of the
injuries. An undertaking as
is provided for in section 17(4)(a) of
the Road Accident Fund Act follows.
The remaining question is
that of potential future loss of income.
In this regard the
caselaw in respect of the value of expert opinion is fairly well
established, and the Supreme Court of Appeal,
in many instances,
indicated that an expert's opinion, or the value thereof, is directly
linked to the factual foundation on which
the opinion is based.
Nevertheless, a court is never bound to the opinion of an expert. To
the extent that the experts in this
matter suggested that there may
be a directly quantifiable future loss of income as a result of a
fractured collarbone, the opinions
are not accepted.
There is no factual basis
to support such opinion, nor is there any reference to literature or
any other research that might substantiate
the position taken by the
experts. Similarly, the calculation was done on the premise that the
plaintiff would have worked until
the age of 67.5. In enquiring from
counsel as to whether there is any evidence to support this approach,
the answer was in the
negative.
Based on the evidence
before this court, there is no quantifiable direct claim for future
loss of income. Does that automatically
imply that there is no claim
per se
? No, it does not. It may well be possible that the
sequelae of the injury will impede the plaintiff's ability to freely
offer his
services in the employment market, but the value of such an
impediment cannot be actuarially quantified.
A court has the ability
to award a lump sum when no quantifiable figure is possible. To that
extent and considering the available
evidence and counsel's very able
submissions from the bar, I have decided to exercise my discretion
and award an amount of R500 000
as impairment of future earning
capacity.
ORDER
My order reads as
follows:
1. The plaintiff's
application in terms of rule 38(2), is granted.
2. The defendant shall
pay the plaintiff the sum of R500 000 in respect of impairment
of earning capacity.
3. The defendant shall
provide the plaintiff with an undertaking, as is provided for in
section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund
Act, for such future
hospital, medical or ancillary expenses as the minor may require as a
result of injuries sustained in the
accident that occurred on 19
December 2019.
4. The plaintiff, having
been substantially successful, is entitled to his party and party
costs as taxed or agreed, including the
cost of the medical legal
reports filed off record and counsel's fees on scale B.
WEIDEMAN, AJ
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
DATE
:
……………….