REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 28760/2009
1. REPORTABLE : NO
2. OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
3. RE VISED: YES
DATE : 16 September 2025
SIGNATURE OF JUDG E :
In the matter between:
JACK NELSON RAMASHIA
and
MINISTER OF POLICE
Plaintiff
Defendant
JUDGMENT
Woodrow, AJ:
Introduction
[1] The plaintiff suffered damage when he was shot by members of the defendant
(the “incident”). The issue of liability has been conceded by the defendant.
According to the defendant’s heads of argument (par 4): “ The issue of merits
was decided in favour of the plaintiff at 100% on August 8, 2017.”
[2] The quantum to be awarded to the plaintiff is the only issue to be decided.
[3] The plaintiff is Jack Nelson Ramashia, born on March 6, 1964. The plaintiff
worked as a driver for Earlybird Farm at the time of the incident.
[4] The incident occurred on 18 May 2006.
[5] At the time of the incident the plaintiff was 42 years old. He is currently 61
years old.
[6] In their pre -trial minute signed in April 2025 (CaseLines, 006-7), the parties
agreed under the heading ‘issues in dispute’ as follows:
“8.1. The only issue to be determined by this honourable court is the extent
on which damages caused by the incident are to be awarded to the
Plaintiff.
8.2. The plaintiff will rely on experts reports appointed on the matter who
had conducted the medical examination on the plaintiff.
8.3. The court is called upon to decide whether the Plaintiff is entitled to
the award as per the amended particulars of claim.”
[7] In terms of the amended particulars of claim ( CaseLines, 003), the plaintiff
claims under the following heads of damage in the following sums:
“…
7.1 Past Medical Expenses R67 784.69
7.2 Estimated Future Medical, Hospital and Related Expenditure R400 000.00
7.3 Loss of Earnings R2 927 386.00
7.4 General Damages R5 000 000.00
TOTAL R8 395 170.69”
[8] The parties are agreed that the court is to accept the content of the expert
reports filed on behalf of the plaintiff as evidence in determining the quantum
of the plaintiff’s loss. This was confirmed during the hearing. The parties filed
heads of argument and made oral submissions regarding the aforesaid heads
of damage.
The experts
[9] The following experts for the plaintiff filed reports:
a. Dr ND Thikhathali – Orthopaedic Surgeon (CaseLines, 0 07) who
examined the plaintiff of 1 November 2023.1
b. Prof OD Montwedi – General Surgeon (CaseLines, 0 08) who
examined/interviewed the plaintiff of 29 January 2024.2
c. Ms KP Mabye – Occupational Therapist ( CaseLines, 0 09) who
assessed the plaintiff on 6 November 2023.3
d. Ms K Rakgokong – Industrial Psychologist (CaseLines, 0 10) who
assessed the plaintiff on 6 November 2023.4
e. Mr IB Karidza – Actuary (CaseLines, 0 11) who performed the
calculation with calculation date 1 July 2024.5
[10] The plaintiff had previously filed the following expert reports:
a. Dr Malevu – Radiologist ( CaseLines, 0 6-1) with examination date
reflected as 11 July 2017.
b. TJ Mufamadi – Occupational Therapist (CaseLines, 07-1) with date
of assessment reflected as 26 July 2017.
c. Dr M Radzilani – Orthopaedic Surgeon (CaseLines, 08-1) with date
of assessment reflected as 7 September 2017.
1 CaseLines, 007-5, par 1.3
2 CaseLines, 008-4
3 CaseLines, 009-3, par 1
4 CaseLines, 010-4
5 CaseLines, 011-3, par 1
The plaintiff’s injuries
[11] Counsel for the defendant refers to the J88 in summarising the injuries of the
plaintiff as follows:
“Gunshot left abdomen and lower chest. The bullet entered the left
flank at the edge of the abdomen between the abdomen and the
pleural cavity. Heamotoma on the upper abdomen near the spleen
and the colon; entering the lower chest rib 10 left and causing damage
to the left lung and diaphragm. He underwent laparotomy chest and
was off duty for 7 weeks.” (Defendant’s heads of argument, par 7)
[12] Dr Thikhathali summarises the injuries sustained by the plaintiff as follows:
(CaseLines, 007-6, par 3.1)
3.1 Injuries Sustained
According to the claimant
• Scalp injury
• Left sided back injury
• Penetrating Gunshot injury to the abdomen and chest
According to the hospital records
• 10th rib fracture
• Gunshot abdomen/chest
• Acute abdomen
• Pneumothorax
The plaintiff’s treatment
[13] Counsel for the defendant submits that the treatment received by the plaintiff
“reflects the severity of the plaintiff's injuries. ” ( Defendant’s heads of
argument, par 9) She refers to the summary of the treatment as set out by Dr
Thikhathali (at CaseLines, 007-6, par 3.2). In essence, Dr Thikhathali points
out that the plaintiff received the following treatment:
a. The plaintiff was taken by an ambulance to Thembisa hospital where
he received acute management.
b. He was managed according to ATLS principles.
c. Acute plain x-rays, abdominal x-rays, and CT scan were done.
d. The initial management included the insertion of a nasogastric tube
and an intravenous line.
e. He was given analgesia.
f. He was also on antibiotics as part of the initial management.
g. He was later transferred to ARWYP private hospital the following day
for further management.
h. He had an exploratory laparotomy that was done at ARWYP. An
intercostal drain was also inserted.
i. Physiotherapy was provided for muscle spasms. Chest physiotherapy
was also provided.
j. He stayed at ARWYP hospital for two weeks undergoing further
management. He went to theatre on two occasions. A drain was
inserted in the abdomen on the second theatre visit where he
presented with projectile vomiting.
k. He was treated for paravertebral and left flank muscle spasms.
l. The follow -up visits were fraught with complications related to the
injury.
The sequelae:
[14] Regarding the plaintiff ’s situation prior to the incident, a ccording to Dr
Thikhathali, the plaintiff had “… no relevant past medical history ” (at
CaseLines, 007 -8, par 5), and “ … a normal pre -injury function with no
physical limitations. …” (at CaseLines, 007-8, par 6.1).
[15] Dr Thikhathali states the following in respect of the plaintiff’s present
complaints:
“The patient is currently complaining of the severe back pain and muscle
spasms requiring a back brace. He has lower abdominal pain, testicular
pains and loss of interest in sexual intercourse. He also has episodes of
vomiting since the pancreatic trauma.” (at CaseLines, 007-7, par 4)
[16] Regarding the plaintiff’s “Post injury status ”, Dr Thikhathali states the
following:
“6.2 He has difficulty in drinking fluids and eating. He also has difficulty
in performing manual tasks and engaging in sexual intercourse due to
lack of libido. He has difficulty sitting on his right buttock.” (at CaseLines,
007-8, par 6.2)
[17] With reference to the psychological impact on the plaintiff Dr Thikhathali states
as follows: “The patient reportedly has a fear of police since this incident. He
has had previous disagreements with the police who tried to follow him
wherein he refused to stop scared that they may shoot him again. ” (at
CaseLines, 007-9, par 9) The plaintiff, however, did not call or file an expert
report by a clinical psychologist.
[18] Dr Thikhathali reports as follows in respect of his physical examination of the
plaintiff: (at CaseLines, 007-9, par 10)
“10.1 General examination
The patient has a normal gait with no signs of neurological defects. He
mobilizes with no assistive devices. He communicates well with a GCS 15/15.
10.2 Scars and disfigurement
Midline abdominal scar
• A healed surgical scar measuring 20cm x 2cm
Back scar
• A left sided healed stellate scar on the back is consistent with the
reported gunshot wound
• There was another wound on the chest wall which was consistent with
the insertion of the IC drain.
The permanent scars is a WPI=5%
10.3 Musculoskeletal system
10.3.1 Upper Limbs
• Normal examination findings of the upper limbs
10.3.2 Lower Limbs
• Normal examination findings of the lower limbs
10.3.3 Spine
Lumbar spine examination
• Severe tenderness on the midline and paraspinal areas
• Scars as described in section 10.2 above
• Limited flexion and extension of the back
• Straight leg raise sign is positive on the left.
• Left buttock pain on deep palpation
• Loss of sensation at L4, L5 and S1 dermatomes
10.4 Other systems findings
10.4.1 Neurological examination
• He has no focal neurological signs.
10.4.2 Cardiovascular examination
• Normal cardiovascular examination findings
10.4.3 Respiratory examination
Chest examination
• Healed surgical scars as described in section 10.2
• No signs of respiratory distress
• Tenderness on deep palpation of the chest wall
• No signs of chest effusions
10.4.4 Abdominal examination
• Large midline abdominal scar above the umbilicus
• Abdominal distension due to fat
• Normal bowel sounds”
[19] After discussing the ‘radiological investigations ’, and performing an
‘impairment calculation according to the [ American Medical Association's ]
Guidelines’ Dr Thikhathali sets out the “Impact of injury on the patient's life” as
follows:
“a) Injury diagnosis (Acute):
• L1 fracture
• Rib fractures and Hemopneumothorax
• Pancreatic injury and diaphragm injury
b) Outcome diagnosis (Chronic/Permanent):
• Healed L 1 fracture
• Rib fractures healed with chronic chest pain
• Retained bullet in the chest
c) Pain and suffering:
Acute pain
• The patient had severe acute pain with a severity score of VAS 10/10.
The acute pain lasted more than 8 weeks. He was admitted in the
hospital for some time while undergoing treatment. The pain was
relieved by simple analgesia and bedrest but worsened by mobilisation.
Chronic pain
• The patient currently complains of chronic back pain with a severity
score of VAS 6/10. This pain is worsened by bedrest and never relieved
by any medication.
d) Permanent disability/disfigurement/impairment and prognosis:
• The patient has residual chronic chest wall pains with difficulty in
breathing. The patient also has L 1 fracture with residual spondylosis.
The prognosis is good.
e) Degree of dependency:
• He has regained his full independence and mobilises without any
assistive devices.
f) Loss of earning/education capacity
• The patient was working as a Truck driver at the time of injury. He lost
his job following this injury.
g) Activities of Daily Living (ADLS):
• The activities of daily living have not been affected by this injury.
h) Future medical treatment
1. Surgical management
• The patient will benefit from removal of the remaining bullet in the chest
wall.
2. Conservative management
• Provision should be made for monthly analgesia and anti- inflammatory
medication for his chronic pain
3. Recommendations
• Recommendations for consultations with a Cardiothoracic surgeon in
order to plan the removal of the bullet.
• Consultations with a psychologist is also recommended to help him with
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
i) Life expectancy:
• The life expectancy is not affected.”
[20] Dr Thikhathali sets out his “Summary and discussions” as follows:
“Mr Ramashia Jack Nelson … sustained severe injuries including penetrating
abdominal and bowel injury as well as Hemopneumothorax with
diaphragmatic injury.
The patient had rib fractures with a residual chronic pain and difficulty in
breathing. The penetrating chest injury has healed with no residual
impairments.
The L1 fracture has healed with a residual compression of the L1 vertebra and
residual spondylosis of the lumbar spondylosis. The impairment score for the
Orthopaedic injuries is a WPI=19 %. The impairment score according to the
general surgeon's assessment was a WPI=2%. This gives us a combined final
Impairment score of WPI=21%.
Please refer to the General Surgeon's Medicolegal report for more details.”
[21] Dr Thikhathali sets out his “Expert opinion and conclusion” as follows:
“This patient was involved in a serious traumatic injury of the abdomen and
chest following a gunshot injury by the police. There was a serious injury that
affected the spine, rib, bowel, diaphragm and the lungs. These injuries have
all left serious residual impairments.
The presence of the L 1 fracture and residual spondylosis with an associated
muscle spasms of the lumbar spine have serious long -term impairments on
the patient's ability to carry manual tasks.
There are residual impairment impairments related to the penetrating injuries
of the abdominal organs, diaphragm and the lungs. Please refer the patient to
the General Surgeon and a Cardiothoracic surgeon for further impairment
assessment relating to these abdominal and thoracic injuries as well as a
residual bullet fragment.
This bullet fragment will need to be removed by a cardiothoracic surgeon since
it still causes respiratory pain.
This impairment score of a WPI=19 % is consistent with the severity of the
orthopaedic injuries sustained. The patient was also assessed by a general
surgeon who gave the patient an Impairment score of WPI=2 %. The final
combined impairment score for this patient's injuries is a WPI=21%.
These injuries will cause serious limitations in the patient's ability to perform
manual tasks.
Please refer to the General Surgeon's Medicolegal report for more details.”
[22] Prof Montwedi sets out his “opinion on injuries/damages” as follows:
“Claimant sustained gunshot wound to left lower chest area and the bullet is
still lodged on lateral upper abdominal wall on left side. The injuries sustained
were Left diaphragmatic hernia which was repaired through a laparotomy. No
other intra-abdominal injuries were reported. He also had fracture left 8" rib
and left haemothorax for which the chest drain was inserted. The patient
recovered from this operation but since then has visited many doctors with
complains of pains on abdomen but worse on the back. He is unable to bend
down and as such cannot cope with any work. He has pain in the peroneal
area and is unable to perform sexual intercourse due to perineal pain and
inability to bend.” (at CaseLines, 008-6)
[23] Under the heading “Narrative Test”, Prof Montwedi states as follows:
“The claimant sustained gunshot wound to left thoraco abdominal area for
which a chest drain was inserted and according to him a laparotomy was done
to repair injured intra -abdominal organs. The hospital records states that at
laparotomy a left diaphragmatic hernia was found and repaired. The left rib
fracture was left to heal on its own. The patient did suffer pain and needed
intervention of some kind in the hospital. He should be compensated for
medical expenses incurred , this cost can be obtained from treating doctors
and hospital involved. He does complain of low backache which is severe
enough to interfere with his normal daily activities and disturbs him from
performing sexual intercourse. He has been assessed by orthopaedic expert
for the back and reference should be made to this report. He qualifies for 2%
whole person impairment for repaired diaphragmatic hernia according to AMA
6th edition, page 121 (6.6 Hernia). The quantum equating to this whole person
impairment can be done by actuaries. This should be done in conjunction with
assessment as done by orthopaedic expert.”
[24] Ms Mabye notes the plaintiff ’s current physi cal complaints as follows: (at
CaseLines, 009-11)
• “Lower back pain which is exacerbated when carrying/lifting heavy
items, walking and standing for long.
• Abdominal pain.
• Difficulty sitting upright due to pain on the left buttock.
• Left ribs pain.
• Pelvic pain.
• Cramps on the lower limbs.
• Emesis frequently.”
[25] Ms Mabye states that the plaintiff reported that prior to the incident he used to
go to parks, fishing and travel with his family. Currently he has difficulty due to
the pains he experiences as a result of the incident in question. Post the
incident the plaintiff reported that he just sits at home and does nothing. Under
the heading loss of amenities, Ms Mabye states that: “Mr. Ramashia has
suffered loss of amenities as a result of the incident. He experiences difficulty
in performing activities of daily living which requires walking, standing and
carrying/lifting heavy items due to injuries sustained.”
[26] I do not intend to deal with each and every expert report but shall allude thereto
in dealing with the findings that I make , where necessary . I deal with each
head of damage sequentially.
Medical expenses – past and future
[27] Counsel for the plaintiff submitted in heads of argument that the plaintiff had
“… incurred past medical expenses amounting to R67 784.69.” I agree with
the submission of counsel for the defendant that there is no evidence in
support of this loss at all. This claim cannot be granted.
[28] Regarding the plaintiff’s claim under the heading “Future Medical, Hospital and
Related Expenditure”, counsel for the plaintiff submits that “[f]uture medical
needs are estimated at R400,000.00 (per actuarial projection), including
occupational therapy , assistive aids, pain management , and potential
specialist follow -ups.” The plaintiff applies a 20% contingency deduction 6
thereto and submits that an order in the sum of R320,000 ought to be granted
in respect of future medical needs. (Plaintiff’s heads of argument, par 6.1)
[29] However, future medical needs are not estimated in the actuarial calculation
at R400,000.00, but rather, as pointed out by counsel for the defendant , at
R160,410. (CaseLines, 011-8) Further, contrary to the submissions of counsel
for the plaintiff , amounts in respect of occu pational therapy sessions are
included by the actuary in the table – this is the first item in the table – and the
table includes all of the items referred to in the report of Ms Mabye at
paragraph 18.2. (CaseLines, 009-24)
[30] The parties are agreed that a 20% contingency deduction ought to be applied.
Whilst it is possible to apply a different contingency amount to each of the 18
items in the table formulated by the plaintiff’s actuary, the parties’ application
of a 20% contingency deduction across all of the items is a pragmatic
6 “Contingencies discount the vicissitudes of life and it is a method used to arrive at fair and
reasonable compensation. …” - Honono v Road Accident Fund (4436/2020) [2025] ZAFSHC 43
(10 January 2025) par [46]
approach. The contingency is justified for inter alia the following reasons: a
number of items referred to in the table which have a replacement frequency
attached to them may not require replacement as often as is set out; there is
a possibility that the plaintiff may not live for the entire duration of the period
for which provision has been made ; there is a chance that the plaintiff may
elect not to purchase certain items et cetera.
[31] The plaintiff is entitled to an or der in respect of his claim under the heading
“Future Medical, Hospital and Related Expenditure” in the sum of R128,328.00
(R160,410 less 20% = R128,328.00).
Loss of Earnings
[32] Ms Mabye states the following under the ehading “Residual work ability”:
“During physical evaluation it was noted that Mr. Ramashia was unable to
meet the physical requirements for any kind of work from sedentary, light,
medium, heavy, to very heavy type of work category. He experiences severe
pains on the lower back and abdomen. The writer notes and concurs with the
statement by Prof. Motwedi (General surgeon) He is unable to bend down and
as such cannot cope with any work.
It was also noted that he is unable to stand and sit upright for long due to lower
back pain. He was unable to stoop squat and crouch, he loses balance. …
The writer concludes taking into consideration all the findings of the
Occupational Therapy assessment together with all other experts’ findings that
Mr. Ramashia is fully and totally incapacitated by the incident. The incident in
question has negatively impacted the claimant's financial security and
ultimately altered with his future.”
[33] The defendant accepts that the plaintiff lost his work as a result of the injuries
sustained in the incident, and that “… the court should accept the opinion of
the experts that his job loss is justified because of the sequelae of the
accident.” (Defendant’s heads of argument, par 59) I agree.
[34] The defendant’s counsel refers to the plaintiff’s actuary’s calculation (before
application of continencies) and points out that the loss “… is calculated at R2
927 386, comprised of:
a. A past loss of R2 101 479
b. A future loss of R825 907”
[35] The actuary sets out the loss in table form as follows:
Uninjured Income (R) Injured Income (R) Loss (R)
Past loss 2 173 122 71 643
Past Contingencies - -
Net 2 173 122 71 643 2 101 479
Future loss 825 907 -
Future
Contingencies
- -
Net 825 907 - 825 907
Total Loss 2 927 386
[36] In argument, the defendant takes no issue with the calculation of the loss but
submits that “[it] is proper to adjust the contingencies to the peculiar facts of
this particular case…” (Defendant’s heads of argument, par 50) and submits
that the appropriate contingency deduction for past loss is 5% and for future
loss of earnings is 25%.
[37] The defendant submits that applying the contingencies the loss ought to be
R2 615 856, and the correct calculation is as follows:
UNINJURED
EARNINGS
INJURED
EARNINGS
LOSS OF
EARNINGS
PAST INCOME R2 173 122 R71 643
Less:
Contingencies
(5% & 5%)
0,00
R2 064 476 R68 060.85 R1 996 426
FUTURE INCOME R825 907 0,00
Less
Contingencies at
25%
R619 430
0,00
R619 430
TOTAL LOSS R2 615 856
[38] In argument, counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the court ought to accept
the contingencies as advanced by the defendant, and that the plaintiff accepts
the defendant’s calculation of damage in the sum of R2 615 856 for loss of
income, past and future. Whilst it may argued that a higher contingency could
be applied to past loss ( due to the significant period and contingencies for
possible interruption in work and other events) and a lower contingency in
respect of future income (the plaintiff being only four years away from
retirement age currently), the plaintiff agreed to the calculation put forward by
the defendant and accepted the sum of R2,615,856 in respect of loss of
income.
[39] Accordingly, damages in respect of loss of income shall be awarded in the
sum of R2,615,856.
General Damages
[40] In the respective heads of arg ument, with refere nce to general damages,
counsel for the plaintiff submitted that an award of R1,800,000 was
appropriate whilst counsel for the defendant submitted that an award of
R700,000 was fair and reasonable.
[41] Both counsel referred me to various cases with regard to the quantum to be
awarded in respect of general damages.
[42] The majority of the cases reli ed upo n by counsel for the plaintiff are
distinguishable and of little assistance in the present matter . In this regard,
counsel for the plai ntiff refers in heads of argument to a number of cases
where the plaintiff was paralysed and rendered a paraplegic. I agree with the
submission of counsel for the defendant that such cases are not comparable
with the present matter.
[43] Past awards in comparable cases serve as a useful guide in determination of
general damages. However, the cases must be comparable. (MEC for Health,
Gauteng Provincial Government v AAS obo CMMS (401/2023) [2025]
ZASCA 91 (20 June 2025) (the “MEC for Health case”) par [50]) If not,
reliance thereon serves to confuse rather than assist.
[44] In assessing an award for general damages, the court has a broad discretion
to award what it considers to be fair and adequate compensation. (Ambrose
v Road Accident Fund (255/09) [2010] ZAECPEHC 24 (1 June 2010) par
[48]) The award must be fair to both sides . The court must give ‘just
compensation’ to the plaintiff.
[45] A claim for general or non -patrimonial damages requires an assessment of
the plaintiff’s pain and suffering, disfigurement, permanent disability, and loss
of amenities of life and attaching a monetary value thereto. (Mashigo v Road
Accident Fund (2120/2014) [2018] ZAGPPHC 539 (13 June 2018) par [10])
When compensating for general damages, the court attempts to compensate,
as best as it is able to , for the aforesaid non -patrimonial losses. There are
different elements to be assessed in the overall asse ssment, for example:
“‘Pain and suffering’ refer to: (a) the physical discomfort due to the injury itself
or its consequences, including the discomfort caused by any medical
treatment which one might have to undergo, and (b) the mental or emotional
distress which a person may experience because of the injury. Loss of
amenities of life, on the other hand, refers to, among others, the deprivation
of the ability to do the things which before the accident a claimant was able to
enjoy, and to prevent full participation in the normal activities of life.” (MEC for
Health case par [52] (footnotes om itted)) The plaintiff’s claim for general
damages is “…in respect of pain, suffering and discomfort, emotional shock
and trauma, loss of enjoyment and of the amenities of life, disfigurement and
non-pecuniary aspect of disability.” (Amended particulars of claim, par 10)
[46] With regard to the plaintiff ’s general damages, and without d erogating from
the totality of the relevant facts, the following inter alia is relevant:
a. At the time of the incident the plaintiff was 42 years old. He is currently
61 years old.
b. He sustained gunshot wounds to the scalp and to the left side of the back
which penetrated and injured the abdomen and chest , fracturing the
tenth rib.
c. The plaintiff had t o undergo a laparotomy to find an d repair a left
diaphragmatic hernia.
d. The plaintiff had severe acute pain with a severity score of VAS 10/10.
The acute pain lasted more than 8 weeks.
e. He was hospitalised for two weeks undergoing further management and
went to theatre on two occasions.
f. The plaintiff now has a fear of the police.
g. The plaintiff has various scars (as addressed in the expert reports).
h. In respect of his lumbar spine, the plaintiff has tenderness on the midline
and paraspinal areas , l imited flexion and extension of the back , left
buttock pain on deep palpation , and loss of sensation at L4, L5 and S 1
dermatomes.
i. Almost two decades after the incident the plaintiff still has difficulty in
drinking fluids and eating , in performing manual tasks and engaging in
sexual intercourse, and sitting on his right buttock.
j. The plaintiff currently complains of chronic back pain with a severity
score of VAS 6/10. This pain is worsened by bedrest and never relieved
by any medication.
k. The plaintiff has residual chronic chest wall pains with difficulty in
breathing.
l. There is still a bullet lodged in the plaintiff.
m. The plaintiff no longer goes to parks, fishing or travelling with his family
due to the pain he experiences as a result of the incident in question.
n. The plaintiff has suffered loss of amenities as a result of the incident. He
experiences difficulty in performing activities of daily living which require
walking, standing and carrying/lifting heavy items due to the injuries
sustained.
[47] As indicated already, counsel for the defendant submits that the sum of
R700,000 is fair and reasonable in respect of general damages. Counsel for
the defendant referred me to various cases to support her argument that the
aforesaid sum is fair and reasonab le, the majority of which had a lower
present-day value than R700,000. The one matter to which I was referred by
counsel for the defendant with a higher present-day value is the matter of
Ramolobeng v Lowveld Bus Services (Pty) Ltd and Another (29836/09)
[2015] ZAGPPHC 31 (3 February 2015) (“Ramolobeng case”). The
Ramolobeng case, a case involving injury sustained in a motor vehicle (bus)
collision, was also decided on the basis of a stated case . In the Ramolobeng
case the plaintiff suffered inter alia “… injuries to the cervical and lumbar spine
and a head injury with concussion .” (par [4]) Counsel for the defendant
submitted that the plaintiff in that matter was awarded R550,000 in 2015,
which in present-day value is R895,535.71. The periods of hospitalisation in
that matter were considerably longer than in casu , and there were further
procedures and injuries that are not applicable in the present matter . In my
view, the plaintiff in casu is entitled to a lower award than in the aforesaid case.
[48] I have considered earlier awards. In my view, with reference to the r elevant
facts in the present matter, the submission on the part of co unsel for the
defendant that a sum of R700,000 in respect of general damages is fair and
reasonable in the present matter is correct.
Costs
[49] Costs ought to follow the result.
[50] Both partes submitted that the matter was of some complexity and that costs
of counsel to be taxed on Scale B is warranted. In view of the totality of the
facts and the relevant considerations in terms of uniform rule 67(A)(3)(b), my
view is that scale B is appropriate.
ORDER
[51] Accordingly, I make the following order:
1. The defendant is ordered and directed to pay the plaintiff the sum of
R3,444,184.00 (three million , four hundred and forty four thousand,
one hundred and eighty four rand), within 30 days of date of this order,
such sum comprising the following heads of damages:
1.1. R128,328.00 in respect of future medical expenses;
1.2. R2,615,856.00 in respect of past and future loss of income;
1.3. R700,000.00 in respect of general damages.
2. The defendant shall pay interest on the above amount calculated at
the rate of 10.75% per annum from date of judgment until date of final
payment.
3. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff's party and party costs, on the
High Court tariff, which costs shall include the following:
3.1. The reasonable preparation, qualification, reservation and
attendance fees, if any, of the plaintiff's experts whose reports
have been furnished to the defendant, such experts being:
3.1.1. Dr ND Thikhathali – Orthopaedic Surgeon;
3.1.2. Prof OD Montwedi - General Surgeon;
3.1.3. Ms KP Mabye - Occupational Therapist;
3.1.4. Ms K Rakgokong - Industrial Psychologist;
3.1.5. Mr 18 Karidza - Actuary;
3.1.6. Dr Malevu - Rad iologist;
3.1.7. T J Mufamad i - Occupational Therapist;
3.1.8. Dr M Radzilani - Orthopaedic Surgeon.
3.2. Counsel's fees, to be taxed on Scale B.
WOODROWAJ
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
This Judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties and or
parties' representatives by e-mail and by being uploaded to CaseLines. The date and
time for the hand down is deemed to be 1 0h00 on the 16TH of September 2025.
Appearance s
Counsel for the Plaintiff: V Mukwevho
Attorney for the Plaintiff: Mphaphuli R Attorneys
Counsel for the De fendant: B Nodada
Attorney for the Defendant: State Attorney, Pretoria
Date of Hearing: 13 June 2025
Date of Judgment: 16 September 2025