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, PRETORIA

CASE NUMBER: 23172/18
DATE: 15 August 2025
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED.
DATE: 2025.08.15
SIGNATURE:

ADV. NTOKOZO MJIYAKO obo T[...] S[...] Plaintiff

V

THE ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Defendant

JUDGMENT

MABUSE J

[1] On 22 August 2024, the above matter came before court for general damages
and loss of earnings. The issue about loss of earnings was stood down, at the
instance of the Defendant, to 25 October 2024. The court proceeded to hear

argument only in respect of the amount of general damages to be awarded. The
court was informed by Ms Nelufule, the Defendant's attorney, that the Defendant had
tabled an offer to the Plaintiff’s legal team with regards to the Patient's claim for
general damages and that the said offer was not acceptable. The court was informed
further by Advocate Ras SC, counsel for the Plaintiff, that the offer made by the
Defendant was not acceptable because it would be shot by R3 million.

[2] Having listened to the submissions by Advocate Ras SC, and Ms Nelufule,
the court, without much ado, granted an order as set out in the draft order mark
"PPP" without giving any reasons. Now the Defendant has requested the court to
furnish reasons for its order. These are therefore the reasons for the said order.

[3] Before delving into the reasons for the said order, it is of paramount
importance to point out that the issue relating to loss of income was resolved on 25
October 2024 when the court granted an order marked "XPS" in favour of the Patient.
Still the court furnished no reasons for such an order, which prompted the Defendant
to request the court to furnish reasons for such an order. Written reasons were
furnished on 20 May 2025. Accordingly, these written reasons should be regarded as
part of the written reasons handed down on 20 May 2025. This part of the judgment
deals only with reasons for the general damages while the judgment of 20 May 2025
dealt strictly with the reasons for the order of loss of earnings. Therefore, this
judgement must be re ad in conjunction with the judgment or reasons, if you choose
to call them, of 20 May 2025.

[4] As a starting point, the Defendant conceded that the injuries sustained by the
patient were serious. The Defendant accepted liability on the merit to pay 109% of
the proven general damages. The patient in this matter is a boy, T[...] S[...],
represented in this matter by Advocate Ntokozo Mjiako, the curator ad litem, and

represented in this matter by Advocate Ntokozo Mjiako, the curator ad litem, and
who at the time of the accident in question was only five years old. For purposes of
convenience, I will refer to T[...] S[...] in this matter as the Patient

[5] The amount of general damages awarded to the Patient in this matter was
determined based on the nature of the injuries sustained by the patient in the
accident and the consequences of such injuries.

[6] On 11 January 2016, the Patient, who was a pedestrian, was involved in a
motor-vehicle accident. As a consequence of the said motor -vehicle accident, the
Patient sustained certain serious body injury. As indicated somewhere supra, th e
Defendant has conceded that it is liable to pay the Patient 100% of the proven or
agreed damages arising from the collision.

[7] After the collision, the Patient was conveyed to Red Cross War Memorial
Children's Hospital, Paediatric Intensive Care Unit . The provisional diagnosis of the
Patient was traumatic brain injury. According to the clinical records of the Hospital,
the Patient was diagnosed with:

[7.1] bilateral frontal contusion.
[7.2] left cerebral contusion.
[7.3] diffuse shearing.
[7.4] severe closed head trauma with Glasgow, scale of 40/50 ( M3evt).
[7.5] intra ventricular haemorrhage.
[7.6] bilateral base of skull fracture involving left mastoid and sphenoid wing
on the right period.
[7.7] secondary hydrocephalus and meningitis.
[7.8] blunt abdominal trauma with grade 11 liver laceration.
[7.9] pelvic fracture of the right diastases of the right sacroiliac joint and
fracture of the right inferior public ramus.

[8] According to hospital records of government Hospital, the patient sustained
the following injuries:

[8.1] very severe head injuries.
[8.2] loss of consciousness but not seizures.
[8.3] his GCS was 4T/15.
[8.4] his pupils were fixed and dilated.
[8.5] he had bilateral CSF otorrhea;(otorrhea, sometimes known as ear
drainage, is the abnormal discharge of fluid from the ear. This condition can

be caused by various factors, including ear infections, perforated eardrums or
even trauma).
[8.6] a CT scan done on 12/1/2016 showed bifrontal contusions, left cerebellar
contusions, small subarachnoid haemorrhage and inter -ventricular
haemorrhage.
[8.7] he had bilateral base of scalp fractures involving left mastoid and right
sphenoid wing.
[8.8] CT abdomen showed grade 2 liver laceration.
[8.9] pelvic fracture (diastatic right sacroiliac joint and fracture of right inferior
pubic
ramus);
[8.10] TREATMENT
[8.10.1] the pelvic fracture was. managed conservatively.
[8.10.2] ICP monitor inserted. It was ventilated in ICU.
[8.10.3] he had a failed extubation on 19.1.2016 due to vocal
cords palsy. He was ultimately re-intubated.
[8.10.4] he had a tracheostomy done on 20/1/2016.
[8.10.5] two weeks after admission he was hypertensive and
bradychardic;
[8.10.6] CT scan should grossly di lated ventricles. As a result, an
EVD was placed on 25.1. 2016.
[8.11] a VP shunt was placed on 26.1.2016.
[8.12] the trachi was removed on 3.2.2016. He developed an occipital
pressure sore in ICU, which healed completely.
[8.13] his GCS remained at 8/15.
[8.14] on 15.12.216 he was transferred to GSH for rehabilitation. While GSH,
he received occupational therapy speech and physiotherapy.
[8.15] further observations of the Patient while he remained at the GSH.
[8.15.1] his lower limbs remained flaccid with no voluntary
movement for a long time.
[8.15.2] MRI scan done on 18.3.2016 showed extensive brain
injury, persistent hydrocephalus, and partially visualised left sinus.
[8.15.3] as he regained more active move ment, his movements
were very unco-ordinated and chorea -like. He was started on

Haloperidol, but it did not improve the chorea, and he developed
severe dystonia. The Haloperidol was accordingly stopped.
[8.15.4] he had bilateral ptosis and bilateral cranial nerve iii palsy.
He was transferred back to St. Joseph Home for further in -patient
rehabilitation.

[9] THE OBSERVATIONS BY CHRISTINE du TOIT, THE CHIEF
OCCUPATIONAL THERAPIST AT GSH DONE ON 18 APRIL 2016:

[9.1] She reported that at her occupational th erapist assessment on 18 April
2016, the Patient had an NG tube in situ. His eyes remained closed. He did
not respond to stimuli. He also did not vocalise any sound. His lower limbs
were flaccid, with no voluntary movement.
[9.2] he had full passive ROM (r ange of motion) of lower limbs. His upper
limbs had increased flexor -tone, but full passive ROM. He had involuntary
jerky movements of both upper limbs.
[9.3] he had no head or trunk control and was fully dependent for all ADL's
(activities of
daily living);
[9.4] THE TREATMENT:
[9.4.1] some intervention measures were taken to assist the Patient with
some of his problems. Initially physical intervention included mobilisation of all
four limbs and positioning to prevent contractures. Facilitation of transitional
movements of the patient was done. Positioning in ward loan buggy was done
for short periods during the day for feeds. She also worked on the head and
trunk control and weight bearing upper and lower limbs in fully supported
positions.
[9.4.2] as the Patience regained voluntary movement, she worked on active
assistant movement, reach, grasp and release. Cognitive intervention
included orientation to the person, place and time. As this level of
consciousness improved, the Patient started to engage more. Ms du Toit then
worked on attention and the Patient's ability to follow commands.

[9.4.3] On 6.4.2016, a Buggy -to-Go was issued to the Patient. To provide
neck to provide neck stability when sitting on the buggy, she used a neck
pillow.

[10] According to Ms du Toit, despite all the interventions as set out above, the
Patient's progress towards recovery has been too slow, even though he has shown
some improvement and ability to engage in therapy. All these prove the severity of
the injury sustained by the Patien t because of the motor collision in question. The
severity of these injuries is further shown by the Patient's inability to make
considerable progress towards recovery.

[11] From Ms du Toit's diagnosis, it is crystal clear that some of his injuries are
incurable and are of a permanent nature.

[12] THE OUTCOME OF ALL THE INTERVENTIONS:

[12.1] According to Ms du Toit, at the time of his discharge, the Patient had,
following the interventions to help him to recover, made the following progress:
[12.1.1] he had full active Rome of both Apocalypse with the power of 3/5. In
supine position he can bring his hands to midline, and when he is holding an
object, he can bring it to his mouth.
[12.1.2] He has voluntary movement of both his lower limbs, with power o f
3.5. His left lower limb moves faster on command than the right. He does not
have full active ROM of his lower limbs, but has passive ROM.
[12.1.3] he could grasp and release when commanded to do so. This means
that he understood the instructions giv en to him because he did what was
required of him.
[12.1.4] but still he was unable to manipulate objects in his hands. Still, this
shows that he was unable, on his own, to figure out how to use an object in
his possession. This was a demonstration of the extent to which the accident
had affected his thinking abilities.
[12.1.5] the Patient's progress has been slow. But he has shown
improvement and ability to engage in therapy. At the time of his discharge, his
functioning was as follows:

Senior Motor: He h as full active ROM of both upper limbs, with the power of
3/5. He can grasp objects with a gross grasp and release on command. He is
unable to manipulate objects in his hands. His right upper limb is more
functional in terms of grasp and speed of movement. In supine he can bring
his hands to midline and when holding an object, he can bring it to his mouth.
He has voluntary movement of both his lower limbs, with the power of 3 -/5.
His left lower limp moves faster on commander than the right. He does
not have full active ROM of his lower limbs, but he has full passive ROM. Due
to the chorea, his lower limbs tend to move into adduction and internal
rotation. His upper limbs movements are very jerky and in -coordinated. The
Patient needs facilitation to roll sup ine to both sides and into prone. When
positioned in the puppy he can maintain the position for a few seconds. In
prone he can lift his head and push up on extended arms briefly. His head
control has improved, although he still meets head support in sit. H e still
needs full trunk support sit. He needs supervision when sitting in the buggy,
as he sometimes manages to get his head out of the head support and then
he gets stuck.
Vision: The Patient is unable to open his eyes fully. He can open them very
slightly and only briefly. However, when his eyes are opened positively, he
can imitate facial expressions and hand gestures.
Self-care: The Patient is fully dependent for all his self-care tasks.
Communication: The Patient is unable to speak. He tries to make sounds to
attract attention. He smiles and laughs when it is happy and cries when he is
upset.
Cognition: The Patient can identify a few body parts on himself by pointing.
He can follow simple motor commands.

[13] On July 2024, the patient was sent to Dr Zayne Domingo Inc, the
neurosurgeon, for assessment. At this assessment, Dr Domingo was armed with
certain documents, namely, the road accident 141, the medical records and medical

certain documents, namely, the road accident 141, the medical records and medical
legal reports. He was given copies of the following medical legal reports:

[13.1] Dr JS Sangor, orthopaedic surgeon, dated 12 October 2017.

[13.2] Michelle Nester, occupational therapist's report dated 2 November
2017.
[13.3] Renee Dewitt, clinical psychologist dated 10 November 2017.
[13.4] Dr Dale Ogilvy, speech language pathologist dated 15 December 2017.
[13.5] Yolande Bakker, educational psychologist, dated 5 December 2017.
[13.6] Yolande Becker psychologist dated 31 May 2024.
[13.7] Dr T Sutherland, psychiatrist dated 21 June 2024.

[14] Present Conditions:

Before the assessment Dr Domingo was informed that the Patient's present
conditions/problems were as follows:

[14.1] he was unable to walk and was wheelchair-bound.
[14.2] he was unable to stand unass isted due to poor leg coordination and
weakness.
[14.3] poor coordination in both arms and hands.
[14.4] poor memory and concentration.
[14.5] he was cognitively slow.
[14.6] he laughs inappropriately.
[14.7] poor speech with dysphasia (impairment of the power to speak or to
understand speech, as a result of brain injury, or stroke or dis ease) and
dysarthria (difficulty in speaking because the muscles used for speech are
weak).
[14.8] he had difficulty in communicating and expressing himself.
[14.9] had a squint on the right eye.
[14.10] he was unable to open the left eye.
[14.11] on specific questioning, it was report ed that he had not had any
seizures.

[15] In order to prove the consequences of the injuries on the Patient, one merely
has to look at his condition prior to the accident. It is reported that at the time of the
motor accident, the patient was about to start grade 1 (one). Prior to this, he had
attended a Creche where he was reported to have been doing well. Due to the

accident, the patient was unable to return to the mainstream education as a result of
his significant physical and cognitive problems . The Patient remained with the
significant cognitive and communicative difficulties and is illiterate. He is unable to
participate in any sport or leisure activities. He interacts poorly with his peers. He
requires supervision and assistance with all his activities of daily living.

[16] HIS DISCOVERIES ON PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OF THE PATIENT:

On physical examination of the patient, Dr Domingo made the following discoveries
on the central nervous system of the Patient:

[16.1] the passion was disorientated.
[16.2] he was cognitively slow and had difficulty understanding instructions.
[16.3] his behaviour was tight like with inappropriate laughter.
[16.4] he had poor speech with this dysarthria and dysphasia
[16.5] he had bilateral third nerve palsies with a divergent squint on the right.
[16.6] bracket he was unable to open the left eyelid (complete ptosis - the
drooping of the upper eyelid, and person usually presents with the complaint
of the defect in vision or cosmesis);
[16.7] he had poor upper limb coordination with past pointing and intention
tremor.
[16.8] he had poor leg coordination.

[17] There was no evidence by Dr Domingo that the Patient was born with any of
deficiencies mentioned in paragraph 16 above. There is no evidence that these
deficiencies were caused by anything than the motor accident in question.
Information from the mother has not hinted on the Patient being born with the above
deficiencies or suffering from them at any stage after his birth.

[18] HIS ASSESSMENT:

Dr Domingo made the following assessment of the Patient:

[18.1] There was a significant blow to the head as evidenced by the extensive
scull base fractures.
[18.2] based on his initial level of consciousness and prolonged period of
post-traumatic amnesia he has sustained a severe traumatic brain injury.
[18.3] CT scan confirmed the presence of structural brain injury with multiple
contusions in addition to cerebral spelling.
[18.4] the documented Hypo attention hypoxia and raised in intracranial
pressure would have resulted in additional secondary brain injury period.
[18.5] require intubation ventilation and prolonged rehabilitation.
[18.6] the patient has been left with significant received while physical
disabilities. He has poor hand coordination and is wheelchair-bound.
[18.7] he has significant received while cognitive, cognitive communicative
and behaviour deficits in keeping with the nature interiority of the brain injury
sustained.
[18.8] the extent and severity of the reported deficits have been confirmed on
formal neuro psychological and speech and language assessment.
[18.9] result of his cognitive and communicative deficits, he has been unable
to attend mainstream schooling and has been placed in the school for
learners with special education needs. He remains illiterate.
[18.10] it is now more than eight years since the accident took place, and his
physical and cognitive deficiencies are permanent. This means that his
physical and cognitive deficiencies will never be cured.
[18.11] the Patient remained at the risk of developing late post -traumatic
seizures. Provision will need to be made for the investigation and life­ long
treatment of seizures.
[18.12] for purposes of RAF Form for key classified in injuries he pointed out
that the patient's injury was serious. He went further and reported that the
patient at sustained as severe traumatic brain injury with associated
intracranial haemorrhage that has resu lted in significant residual physical,
cognitive, communicative and behavioural problems. As a result of these

cognitive, communicative and behavioural problems. As a result of these
deficits, the Patient was unable to attend mainstream schooling and would
remain illiterate. His injury can be severe. He will continue to suffer a
permanent and serious long -term impairment in respect of his work and
personal life.

[18.13] the Patient is disfigured by his disabilities and dependence on a
wheelchair.

[19] REPORT BY DR JS SAGOR. THE ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON:

[19.1] on 28 September 2017 comma t he patient was sent to Dr J Sago, the
orthopaedic session, for assessment. For the purposes of this assessment, Dr
Sago had the following documents:
[19.1.1] RAF 1 Form.
[19.1.2] copies of the hospital's clinical records.
[19.1.3] a copy of the medical legal report by Dr J Reid dated
23.02.2017.
[19.2] he made the following clinical observations during his clinical
examination of the Patient on 28.9.2017.
[19.2.1] the Patient, who had been accompanied by his mother to
assessment, was wheelchair-bound.
[19.2.2] he had a bilateral, 1.5 tracheostomy. Yet no proper responses
to questions. I must accept that this observation should be made by an
neurosurgeon and not an orthopaedic surgeon. An orthopaedic
surgeon is a medical profession who specialises in dia gnosing, treating
and preventing diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system
which, includes bones, joints, ligaments, tendons, muscles and nerves.
Accordingly, during clinical examination of the Patient he found no
fractures of the face and skull and hence no report about it;
[19.2.3] according to Dr Sager, the Patient's pelvis was stable. Both
hip joints have equal movement.
[19.2.4] the Patient's lower limbs are flaccid (soft and handy loosely,
simply especially so as to look or feel unpleasan t). He had absent
reflexes. There were no spasms. There was no spasm in his hip's joints
knee or feet (spasms as sudden involuntary muscular contraction or
convulsive movement). The Patient was unable to stand or walk, one
should add unassisted. This will be a permanent and incurable feature
of the patient, all induced by motor accident in which he was involved.

The motor accident has imposed on the Patient deficits he was not
born with.
[19.3] he remarked as follows on the patient's disabilities:
[19.3.1] the patient suffered from poly trauma (polytrauma and
multiple trauma are medical terms describing the condition of a person
who has been subjected to multiple traumatic injuries such as serious
head injury).
[19.3.2] the Patient has permanently lost most amenities of life and is
disabled and functionally impaired as a result of the head injury
suffered.

[20] Michelle BESTER is an occupational therapist who practises out of Wellington.
On 13 November 2017 the Patient was sent to her for assessment. There is clearly a
misunderstanding here. As we all know, an occupational therapist is healthcare
practitioner who helps you to improve your ability to perform daily tasks like dressing
up or using a computer:

[20.1] an occupational therapist helps people to take part in the activities they
need and want to do often following injury, illness, or disability. They assess a
person's abilities and environment; they develop and implement treatment
plans to improve functions and independence in daily living tasks. This can
involve teaching new skil ls, changing tasks or environments, and
recommending assistive devices.
[20.2] an occupational therapist assesses a person's physical, cognitive, and
emotional abilities as well as their environment to find challenges and
strengths.
[20.3] the purpose of referring the patient to Mr Bester was to enable her to
assess the nature and extent of the Patient's injuries and the effect thereof on
his ability, in future, to participate in overall activities including, personal
maintenance, leisure, recreation and schooling, discuss the Patient's future
treatment, assistive devices, adaptations and/or assistance in the costs
thereof;
[20.4] at the material time of the assessment, the complaints about the
Patient were that:

[20.4.1] the Patient was unable to stand and walk. The muscles of his
core and lower limbs were very weak.
[20.4.2] when he walks supported, his gait is very ataxic (ataxic is a
term for a group of disorders that affect coordination, balance, and
speech. Any part of the body can be affected but people with ataxia
often have difficulties with balance and walking, speaking, tasks that
require a high degree of control, such as writing or eating, vision.
[20.4.3] his left side i s much weaker and more affected than his right
side.
[20.4.4] his hips tend to be more adduction (a movement away from
the midline, adduction may occur when a joint moves apart from the
body towards the mental midline, in other words, one place).
[20.4.5] his eyelids tend to the droop and are at times completely
closed. His left eye is worse than right eye.
[20.4.6] his speech is slow and a bit slurred.
[20.4.7] he is incontinent.
[20.4.8] he displayed many behavioural changes. He tends to become
aggressive at times.

[21] ASSESSMENT:

[21.1] the Patient sometimes offers that he suffered from headaches, and he
will then hold his head and cry or just lie down.
[21.2] her assessment was that the Patient's physical and neuro -cognitive
limitations are of a permanent nature. The patient will be in the dependent
position and une mployable for the rest of his life. This is the most important
observation made by the occupational therapist. The Patient will never be
employed.

[22] SELF CARE:

[22.1] the Patient needs help and aid with all his personal maintenance tasks.
[22.2] he is completely unable to help his mother in any part of these

activities. Thus, he needs to be dressed and undressed. His parents or
caregivers struggle with dressing and undressing of his affected left side. He
is unable to handle any mechanism such as zi ps or buttons. He gets intention
tremors in his right hand and therefore it is difficult for him to manage fine
motor activities with his right hand as well, although this is his least affected
side.
[22.3] the Patient is unable to eat completely independently. Sometimes he
tries to eat by himself with a spoon. Then he would spill a lot. According to his
mother, his hands start to shake when he drinks from a cup. To avoid him
spilling, he is made to drink from a squeeze bottle.
[22.4] the Patient needs to wear nappies on a constant basis because he has
no control over these functions.
[22.5] the Patient started attending school at St. Joseph's RC Primary School,
which is a school for children with special needs. The Patient is still in need of
continuous support and help with most tasks.
[22.6] because of this accident, the Patient experiences daily severe physical
as well as psychological limitations. His life and the lives of his family have
been much compromi sed. The emotional impact of this accident on the
patient father and his family is enormous. His limited physical abilities and
therefore also his daily struggle to take part successfully in everyday life
places a further emotional and financial burden on this family.
[22.7] according to Ms Bester, the Patient will be incontinent for the rest of his
life.
[22.8] he needs a wheelchair that is bespoke.

[23] ASSESSMENT BY DR SUTHERLAND:

[23.1] The Patient was further sent to Dr Sutherland on 20 June 202 4 for
psychiatrist assessment. The purpose of this assessment was to determine if
the Patient suffered from any brain injuries or medical disorder secondary to a
pedestrian vehicle accident which occurred on 11 January 2016, and was if so,
the nature or ex tent of the severity thereof, as well as to determine the

the nature or ex tent of the severity thereof, as well as to determine the
treatment that could be applied to any injuries found;

[23.2] in his possession at the material time of the assessment, Dr Sutherland
had in this possession all the material documents provided to him by the
Plaintiff’s attorneys. Some of these documents set out the personal history
and social circumstances of the Patient. Among these documents were the
clinical records from both the Red Cross and Groote Schuur hospitals, which
records set out the injuries and interventions documented extensively.
[23.3] in his assessment report, Dr Sutherland noted the current symptoms
that the Patient had. He also consulted with the Patient's mother who filled
him up on the Patient's problems. These s ymptoms were well noted in some
of the reports he had in his possession.
[23.4] his diagnosis of the Patient was as follows:
[23.4.1] polytrauma with shock.
[23.4.2] liver lacerations.
[23.4.3] pelvic fractures.
[23.4.4] traumatic brain injury. Extensive base o f skull fractures.
Diffuse axonal injury (axonal refers to anything related to or or
characteristic of an axon, which is the long, slender projection of a
nerve cell (neuron) that conducts electrical impulses away from the cell
body to other neurons, muscl es, or glands. It is the part of the nerve
cell that transmits signals. Extensive intracranial injuries including
contusions and infarctions (obstruction of the blood supply to an organ
or region of tissues, typically by a thrombus or embolus, causing loca l
death of the tissue). Complicated by meningitis and acute
hydrocephalus (hydrocephalus is the build -up of fluid in cavities called
ventricles deep within the brain. The excess fluid increases the size of
the ventricles which leads to the increase in the skull), with
ventriculoperitoneal shunt (a shunt is a passage that is made to allow
blood or fluid to move from one part of the body to another).
Neurocognitive disorder secondary to a traumatic brain injury.

[24] OPINION:

[24.1] in his opinion, the Patient had sustained a severe traumatic brain injury

[24.1] in his opinion, the Patient had sustained a severe traumatic brain injury
at the tender age of five years old. All previously attained development skills

were lost and following the accident, he could not walk, speak, or eat
independently. He was incontinent. He was 14 years at the time of the
assessment. He stayed severely physically and cognitively disabled and
dependent on full -time care and supervision. According to Dr Sutherland, the
patient will never live or function independently; is permanently unemployable
and extremely vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.
[24.2] it is quite clear that the motor accident has changed the Patience's life
massively. He will never recover from the injury he sustained during the
accident in question. He will therefore never live a normal life. He has lost all
the life amenities. He will never be able to walk or talk or eat independently or
to play with other children. The motor accident ruined all his future. He
certainly must be compensated accordingly. No amount of money will
assuage any desire he had to live a normal life.
[24.3] RECOMMENDATIONS:
[24.3.1] he recommends psychiatry assessment and treatmen t for
emotional regulation and behavioural difficulties if needed in future.
[24.3.2] the patient should be checked by a neurologist for late onset
of post traumatic seizures and treatment of same should they occur.
[24.3.3] an appointment of the curator boniis should be considered.
[24.3.4] provision live -in home -based care or replacement in a
residential care facility as home and family circumstances dictate.
[24.3.5] individual psychotherapy for his parents and siblings and
family therapy is advised.

[25] Some of the treatment recommended in paragraph [24] above will be covered
by a certificate issued in terms of the Road Accident Fund Act. There is no
independent claim for caregiving services. But I was informed that such services will
be provided for in the section 17 certificate. Quite clearly the Patient's disabilities
have now placed certain limitations on his family members.

[26] ASSESSMENT OF THE PATIENT BY DR J REID (THE NEUROLOGIST):

[26] ASSESSMENT OF THE PATIENT BY DR J REID (THE NEUROLOGIST):

[26.1] On 23 February 2017, the Patient was sent to Dr J Reid, a neurologist,
for assessment. Having referred to the hospital records of both hospitals and

having considered the Patient's then current condition, he made his own
diagnosis.
[26.2] HIS DIAGNOSIS:
His diagnosis of the Patient was as follows:
[26.2.1] very severe brain trauma; hydrocephalus; profound
neurocognitive and neurological deficit.
[26.2.2] according to Dr Reid, neurological deficits are irreversible. No
further intervention will make a material difference to the outcome.
[26.2.3] he is of increased risk for meningitis while shunt is in situ.
[26.2.4] the Patient cannot be educated. He will therefore remain
illiterate for the rest of his life.
[26.2.5] he will arrive in adult life unemployable.
[26.2.6] he will need around the clock physical care from a responsible
adult, for the rest of his days. Th e adult should be compensated for
performing such duties and for the loss of his/independent income.
[26.2.7] life expectancy is limited to approximately 57 years.
[26.2.8] quantum should include proper compensation for pain and
suffering and the mental anguish of severe brain trauma in a young boy.
[26.2.9] he will never enjoy the pleasures of schooling, sport,
relationships, and independent career.
[26.2.10] injuries have been classified as profoundly serious.

[27] ASSESSMENT BY YOLANDE BEKKER, T HE EDUCATIONAL
PSYCHOLOGIST:

[27.1] The Patient was sent to Yolande Bekker, an educational psychologist,
for assessment on 13 November 2019 and also for an update on 9 July 2024.
The purposes of these assessments were to determine the impact of the
accident on the Patient's educational potential.
[27.2] For the purposes of these assessments, Mrs Bekker had all the
necessary documentation in her possession.
[27.3] Based on the medico -legal reports that she had perused, her opinion,
briefly, was that th e Patient would not be able to complete any form of
schooling and would remain illiterate. According to her, the Patient was

severely disabled, cognitively as well as physically. He was unable to write,
read or speak.
[27.4] pre -accident, Ms Bekker is o f opinion that had accident not occurred,
the Patient would have been able to complete his Grade 12 (NFQ level 4). He
would have been able to apply for an NSFAS and continued to complete his
NQF level 6 (diploma), if he applied himself.

[28] ASSESSMENT BY DR R DE WITT. A CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST:

[28.1] Renne de Witt, is a clinical and neuro psychologist. The Patient was
sent to him for assessment on 9 November 2017, one year nine months after
the accident had occurred and when the Patient was seven (7) yea rs six (6)
months old. In his possession, he had all the relevant documents, particularly
the RAF Form 1, the clinical records from Red Cross Hospital, the medico­
legal report, and RAF Form 4 by Dr Reid.
[27.2] For the purposes of compiling this report, he had an interview with the
Patient's mother, Miss L[...] S[...], telephonic conversations with Mr Lucy
Smith, the Patient's pre -accident teacher at Sunrise Education Centre and
another one, with Miss Arendse, the Patient's pre -accident teacher at St.
Joseph School. He also perused a written communication by Miss Arendse
addressed to the Patient's mother which was copied from the Patient's
homework book.
[27.3] In this expert report, he dealt with the Family and Personal History;
Birth and Development Milestones; Schooling, Pre-and Post-accident, and the
medical history of the family. The Patient's mother told Dr de Witt that the
Patient was healthy prior to the accident. He had no health problems.
[27.4] He referred to the Patient's injury as set out in the Medici-legal report of
Dr JW Van Der Spuy of the Red Cross Hospital of The Red Cross and to the
clinical records of the Red Cross Hospital.
[27.5] HIS NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT:
Dr De Witt made the following observations about the Patient during his
psychological assessment.
NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT:

[27.5.1] Severe neurological deficits are present, as set out in this
report, and formal testing was not possible. He continuous to present
with gross and fine motor difficulties and is unable to walk and stand
independently, as well as expressive and receptive language difficulties
and is unable to communicate his needs and emotions effectively. He
lacks in terms of basic, pre -school taught type of information. At the
age of seven years and six months, he does not know his age, address
or telephone number; he does not know the name of his school or
teacher; he is unable to identify numbers and can only count to 10, he
is unable to rec ite the days of the week and months of the year,; and
he cannot write this name or draw a man or any other recognisable
figure (mother said that he could write his name and surname prior with
accident);
[27.5.2] the nearest psychological deficits present with a consistent
with the nature and security of the head injury suffered in the accident,
his presentation in hospital and reputation post accident, and the
persisting, severe difficulties reported by mother.
[27.5.3] at the time of this assessment, it was 2 years since the
accident had occurred. Neurological deficits can be considered
permanent. No improvement of functional value is expected.
[27.5.4] the mother reported that she shot normal daily development
and did not present with any cognitive or behaviour dif ficulties scratch.
He was clever and could write his name and surname. He was about to
start grade out when happened. His teacher in the year prior to
accident 2015 reported that it was a normal little boy and he coped well
with the pre -great academic curr iculum and did not present with any
behavioural deficits. Dr De Witt noted that the Patient's older brothers
were progressing well at school according to the mother and they
never failed. Based on the various opinion of the experts that there is
no reason to believe that the Patient would have been able to pass

no reason to believe that the Patient would have been able to pass
grade 12 at school and if he had the opportunity some form of
education.
[27.5.5] POST ACCIDENT:

He attended St. Joseph School since February/March 2017. His
teacher, Ms Arendse, reported that he was restless, disruptive, unable
to do work on his own, needed one-on-one help, was unable to write or
draw, he was emotional outbursts and will scream or cry for no plain
reason, and he showed little to no academic progress. Dr Dewitt was of
opinion that the patient will never be able to progress at the
mainstream school, and it is highly likely that he will acquire reading
and write skills. The focus should be on basic skills training. The
Patient will be unemployable in any role.
[27.5.6] The Patient will need full-time care and supervision for the rest
of his life and provision s hould be made for this. Should relatives no
longer be able to care for him, he will need to be institutionalised.
[27.5.7] His eyesight should be assessed by an ophthalmologist. He
presents with episodes of sudden falling/dropping into the one side and
unresponsiveness, suggestive of epileptic seizures. Allow neurologist
to investigate.
[27.6] Dr de Witt assessed the Patient again on 25 July 2024, in other words,
14 years 2 months after the accident in question and when the Patient was 14
years 2 months old. This time he had additional medico -legal reports. His
clinical and informal neuropsychological assessment was the same as the
initial one.

[28] KOTZE BLAKES & ASSOCIATES

Kotze Blakes and Associates, the industrial psychologists, had an opportunity to
assess the Patient on 12 March 2020. The purpose of the assessment was to
determine the sequelae of the injuries sustained in the accident, the Patient's career
prospects and the Patient's associated likely earnings in terms of the projected post -
accident career.

[28.1] At the time of the assessment the Patient had the following challenges:
[28.1.1] he was wheelchair-bound.
[28.1.2] he had impaired vision and impaired balance.
[28.1.3] he was incontinent.

[28.1.4] cognitively, he had marked challenges in respec t of:
comprehending information.
speech production.
sustaining attention.
[28.1.5] he had the following psychological or emotional
challenges:
Emotional liability.
AGGRESSIVENESS:
[28.2] They then dealt with all the future challenges the Patient would have as
assessed by the various experts.
[28.3] according to them, the Patient will never be able to enter the labour
market.
[28.4] FORMULATION OF FUTURE CAREER PROSPECTS:
The probable impact of the accident on the Patient's future career prospect
and likely earnings is determined by first projecting probable future career
prospects with associated earnings in terms of the projected pre -accident
career, followed by a projection of probable future career prospects with
associated earnings in terms of the projected post accident career.
[28.5] POST ACCIDENT FUTURE CAREER PROSPECTS:
They remarked that when evaluating the Patient's future post -accident career
prospects, cognisance should be taken of his residual physical ability as well
as cognitive, emotional, and psychological functioning, the unique
circumstances of the individual, relevant medical experts' opinions and
collateral information. In addition, cognisance must be taken of the social
economic realities of South Africa.
[28.6] IMPACT ON FUTURE CAREER PROSPECTS:
[28.6.1] Based on the expert opinions of the other experts a nd on their
own assessments, the Patient's future career prospects have been
affected in the following manner:
[28.6.2] all the medical experts agree that the incident and sequelae
have made the Patient unemployable in the open labour market in
future.
[28.6.3] the Patient sustained a very severe brain trauma in the
incident, which resulted in profound neurocognitive, neuropsychological,

cognitive-communicative and neuropsychological deficits making him
93% whole person impaired.
[28.6.4] as per t he educational psychologist, pre -accident, the Patient
would have been able to attend Grade 12 (NQF level 04) as well as a
National Diploma) (NQF level 06). Post accident, that he would not be
able to complete any schooling and would remain illiterate for the rest
of his life.
[28.6.5] based on the opinion of the other experts with whom they
agree, the Patient's occupational functioning and subsequent career
prospects have been obliterated by the sequelae of the injuries
sustained in accident.

[29] An amount of R4 million in respect of the general damages was awarded to
the Patient on 22 August 2024. This court is now requested to give reasons for the
said award. A claim for general damages is a claim for non -economic losses. These
losses include pain, s uffering and of equal importance, emotional distress resulting
from the injuries sustained during an accident. When a court assesses general
damages, it does so upon a consideration of several factors, e.g. the severity and
nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant: the impact of such injuries on the
claimant's quality of life and finally, the time it takes for the injuries to heal and
comparable cases.

[30] A BREAKDOWN OF WHAT THE COURT CONSIDER IN THE AWARD OF
GENERAL DAMAGES AS FOLLOWS:

[30.1] Physical Injuries:
These injuries include fractures, dislocations, spinal cord injuries, head
trauma and other physical impairment.
[30.1.1] it will be recalled that according to the clinical records of Red
Cross Children's Hospital, the Patient had sust ained bilateral base of
skull fracture involving left mastoid and sphenoid wing on the right.
Furthermore, according to Dr Sangor, the Patient had a fracture of the
pelvis involving the right inferior pubic ramus and right sacroiliac Joint.
The Patient had lacerations of the liver.

[30.1.2] he was wheelchair bound. He was squint and incontinent. The
Patient's limps were flaccid. He had no reflexes. He was unable to
stand or walk. He had suffered from polytrauma.
[30.1.3] if you have a fractured or broken bone, doubtlessly you would
have suffered tremendous pain, apart from that such a person would
have to endure months of suffering and inconvenience while the
injuries are healing. In some instances, life in the current case,
fractured or broken bones do not heal correctly, which me ans that the
person who has suffered a broken bone or fracture might be left with
some form of ongoing disability. In this case, because of the fracture
the Patient has sustained, the Patient cannot walk or stand
independently. Broken bones that do not ful ly heal or align correctly
can result in ongoing residual pain or disabilities like the inability to
walk or stand up independently.
[30.2] Psychological Injuries:
These injuries include, PSTD, depression, anxiety and other health issues.
The passion ha s severe neuro -psychological and communicative deficits. He
has significant physical neurological impairment.
[30.3] Loss of Amenities of Life:
There has been a loss of amenities of life lost by the Patient. He is incapable
of independent living. He will not have the freedom of choice in many aspects
of his life. He will not know what it is to fall in love, to play with friends or to
take part in any form of sport. Or to watch sport with any understanding.
[30.4] The Impact of The Injuries on the quality of life.
Much has been said by the experts in this regard. It is correct that when it
comes to the award of general damages, a court has a discretion, which
discretion must be exercised judicially. These Court must also have regard to
the comparable cases. But the court warned in Protea Assurance Co. Ltd v
Lamb 1971 1(1) SA 530 (A) that:
"Comparable cases, when available, should rather be used to afford some

"Comparable cases, when available, should rather be used to afford some
guidance, in a general way, towards assisting the court in arriving at an award
which is not as substantially out of general accord with previous awards in
broadly similar cases, regarding being had to all the factors which are relevant
in the assessment of general damages."

[32] I wish to point out, however that comparable cases merely serve as guidelines
for, each matter must be judged on its own merits.

[33] Counsel for the Plaintiff referred the Court to the following judgments:

[33.1] Bonesse v RAF 2014(7A3) QOD 1 (ECP): This was a matter which
was heard by Pickering J, as he then was, on 20 F ebruary 2014. The Plaintiff
was a young lady who had suffered Serious Physical Injuries, Disfigurement,
Psychological Injuries and which injuries had an Impact on the Quality of the
Plaintiff life. The Court awarded her general damages of R2,500,000.00. The
current value of the said amount is R4,145,000.00. If that matter were heard
in 2024, ten years after 2014, the court would have been entitled, based on
the injuries sustained by the Patient, to award, R4,000,000.00 as it did.
[33.2] the second judgment is Mertz v RAF 2023 (BA2) QOD 6 (GNP): This
is a matter that was heard by the Full Court of this Division consisting of two
senior Judges and an Acting Judge, namely Potteril J, Molopa J, and Bokako
AJ. The matter was heard on 2 December 2022. The pla intiff in the matter
was an adult woman who had been made a tetraplegic (tetraplegic is the term
used to describe the inability to voluntarily move the upper and lower parts of
the body), because of the serious injuries suffered in a motor -vehicle collision.
In 2022, the Full Court awarded the plaintiff, for those injuries full described in
the judgement, R3, 500, 000.00 whose current value is, according to
Quantum of Damages, in 2024, R4, 288, 000.00. There are material
similarities in the injuries suffere d by the plaintiff in that case and the Patient
in this case. These are the factors that this court must consider in figuring out
the amount of general damages to be awarded to the Patient. So, in my view,
the sum of R4,000, 000.00 awarded to the Patient o n 22 August 2024 as
compensation for general damages is not egregious.
[33.3] the third judgment, the Court was referred to was Morake v RAF 2018

[33.3] the third judgment, the Court was referred to was Morake v RAF 2018
(7A2) QOD 9 (GNP) : This matter was heard before Tlhapi J on 6 November
2017. To the Plaintiff who had been m ade a quadriplegic in a motor -vehicle
accident (quadriplegic is a form of paralysis that affects both arms and legs,
typically resulting from damage to the spinal cord in the cervical (neck) region),

the plaintiff was awarded R2.500, 000.00 in 2017. The cu rrent value of the
said amount is R3 532, 000.00 as at 22 August 2024.



PM MABUSE
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT


Appearances:

Counsel for the Appellants: Adv. F Ras (SC)
Assisted by Adv. Anton Laubscher
Instructed by: Addendorff Attorneys Inc.
c/o Savage, Jooste & Adams Inc.

Attorney for the Defendant ; Ms L. Nelufule
Instructed by: The State Attorney

Date hearing and the Order: 22 August 2025
Date of the Reasons: 15 August 2025