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 no.: 9104/2021
(1) REPORTABLE: N
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: N
(3) REVISED: Y
Date: 29/10/2025
In the matter between:
MSELENI OKUHLE Plaintiff
and
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Defendant
Link no.: 5042872
CORAM: ZITHA, AJ
HEARD ON: 24 JUNE 2025
DELIVERED ON: 29 OCTOBER 2025
JUDGMENT
Zitha AJ
[1] The plaintiff is a female adult person with identity number 0[...] currently
residing at Mfitshane location, Mqanduli, Eastern Cape Province, sues
herein in her personal capacity as a result of her involvem ent in a motor
vehicle accident.
[2] On 13 December 2018 at approximately 10:00 and in Mfitshane location,
Mqanduli, Eastern Cape Province, the plaintiff was a passenger on a
bakkie when the said vehicle was involved in an accident. This is an
action for damages which the plaintiff suffered as a result of injuries she
suffered in the accident. The plaintiff instituted the action in her personal
capacity. The issue of liability has already been resolved between the
parties.
[3] In terms of the particulars of claim the plaintiff suffered the following
injuries:
"6.1 Right ankle salter II fracture -displaced;
6.2 Abrasions back; and
6.3 Haematoma forehead"
[4] At the commencement of the trial the defendant did not make any
meaningful participation in the matter. The d efendant was placed under
bar and there was no application to uplift the bar. There was no plea filed
by the defendant. Th ere were no medico -legal reports filed by the
defendant. In fact, the plaintiff’s medico -legal reports remained
uncontested and or unchallenged. The plaintiff consequently requested
at the commencement of the trial that an orde r be granted in terms of
Rule 38(2) for the leading of evidence by way of affidavits . I granted the
requested order.
[5] I am consequently called u pon to determine the future loss of income
and or earning capacity of the plaintiff . In this regard the plain tiff is
claiming an amount of R10 719 900 . I am further called upon to
determine the future medical expenses.
The evidence:
The plaintiff:
[6] The plaintiff relied on the medico -legal reports to adduce evidence that
dealt with the sequelae of the injuries that she sustained.
Documentary evidence:
[7] As part of the plaintif f`s case, the following expert reports, as confirmed
by affidavits, were handed in as exhibits:
1. Mr Thapelo Kalanko, Industrial Psychologist;
2. Dr S.K Mafeelane, Orthopaedic Surgeon;
3. Dr S.M Mabika, Neurosurgeon;
4. Dr LT Kekana, Educational Psychologist;
5. Ms Linda Maye, Neuro/Clinical Psychologist;
6. Ms Ncumisa Ndzungu, Occupational Therapist; and
7. Mr Alex Munro, Actuary,
The Educational Psychologist medico-legal report:
Pre-accident:
[8] In respect of the pr e-accident scenario, the expert noted and concluded
as follows:
1. If the performance of her parents and sibling at s chool is taken
into account, the fact that she has not failed any grade before the
accident and looking at various fac tors that might determine the
learner’s education potential, including family members (both
maternal and paternal educational background ), environment ,
socio-economic factors of the family, it is likely before the accident
she could probably pass grade 12 and obtain admission to a
Batchelor’s degree study. She could probably pursue the degree
study course of her choice and obtain an NQF level 7
qualification. The trend now lately is that ch ildren often achieve
more than their parents, academically and vocationally. The
educational landscape has since changed to support the learners
so that most are able to complete high school education.
2. No pre-existing conditions were reported.
3. Her gross developmental milestones followed a normal trajectory.
4. Her medical history does not include any significant medical
illness prior to the accident.
5. She is staying with her parents and siblings. Their family
relationships and interactions were reported to be satisfactory.
She had been a Grade 9 learner at the time of the accident. She
reportedly did not present with any cognitive difficulties as there
were no cognitive challenges reported prior to the accident.
6. She had the ability to pass matric with a Bach elor Endorsement
and the expert opine that she could have been able to obtain post-
school qualification at NQF Level 7. (My emphasis)
Post-accident:
[9] With regard to the plaintiff’s post-accident functioning, the expert stated
as follows:
1. The expert noted and agreed that she presents with forgetfulness,
short memory span and the inability to comprehend instructions as
expected. Furthermore, she presents with physical and emotional
complaints.
2. The expert noted and acknowledged that she failed Grade 10
post-accident.
3. It would s eem that her neuropsychological , physical and
emotional problems have impacted negatively on her scholastic
and academic progress and on her quality of life. She experiences
feeling of anxiety , inadequacy and uncertainty . Veliswa Quqa
Clinical psychologist and Linda Maye Counselling psychologist
states that she has moderate Post Traumatic Disorder symptoms,
mood dysregulation associa ted wi th presence of depression ,
anxiety and irritability. She failed grade 12 at the end of 2022. She
wrote her supplementary examination in 2023. The said results
were not uploaded on caselines.
4. The accident has rendered her academically vulnerable. The
prognosis of her passing grade 12 seems bleak. She will thus not
achieve her pre -accident potential. Her highest l evel of education
is Grade 11 (NQF level 3) post accident.
The medico-legal report of the Clinical Psychologist:
Pre-accident:
[10] The expert concludes that the plaintiff had no h istory of cognitive -,
physical- or emotional challenges that would have impacted on the
neuropsychological test results.
[11] Socially, she had a good relationship with her family, she was sociable
individual with good relations with her peers, she played netball socially
and she also engaged in religious activities.
[12] Physically, she had no physical difficulties or limitation noted. She would
be considered to have been a healthy individual with no significant
illnesses or injuries prior to the accident.
[13] Cognitively, she had no difficulties in her scholastic studies and in
completing grades R to 9. She reportedly just completed gr ade 9 when
the accident under discussion occurred and was to start grade 10 in
January 2019. Her premorbid aptitude was reportedly average.
[14] Psychologically, she had never had any psychological or psychiatric ills
nor any interventions reported prior to the accident. She had not reported
on any prior traumatic incidents.
[15] Academically/Occupationally, she was a scholar at the time of the
accident.
Post-Accident:
[16] With regard to the pos t-accident scenario, the expert concluded as
follows:
1. Socially, there is a decline in her engagements with friends /peers
due to increased irritability.
2. Physically, she is no longer able to participate in sporting activities
due to her pain in the ankle. She currently suffers from headaches.
She experiences dizziness about once a week. She reports on
lowered energy levels ( fatigue) which occur most of the time. Pain
and physical difficulties affect her on a daily basis. As such she
reports on difficulties with standing for long, playing netball,
running, and walking long distances due to pain to her right ankle.
3. Cognitively, she has memory difficulties, with impact both within her
living and educational settings. She has poor concentration and
distractibility.
4. Psychological, she has decreased appetite. She experiences
fatigability. She has increased irritability with verbal outbursts. She
has presence of moderate anxiety. She is anxious when travelling
in a motor vehicle after the accident. She also presents with mild
PTSD symptoms.
5. Academically/Occupationally, she is currently in grade 12. She
reportedly failed grade 10 following the accident which was
ascribed to poor concentration and pain experienced after the
accident. She was a grade 12 learner at the time of the
assessment and she indicated her post -accident scholastic
performance as decreased due to memory and concentration
difficulties.
The medico-legal report of the Neurosurgeon:
Post-accident:
[17] The expert concluded as follows:
1. The plaintiff sustained a he ad injury in the accident. The expert
suggested a mild head injury as evident by a Glasgow Coma
Scale 15/15 and no CT brain scan was performed. The head
injury was treated conservatively.
2. Since the accident, she has been complaining of chronic post
head injury headaches and right ankles pains when cold . They
agreed that the headaches be treated medically with analgesia.
3. The plaintiff complains of memory problems, short temper,
nightmares about the accident, anxiety and fears about cars,
decreased concentration problems and in this regard, they
deferred to the reports of the clinical psychologists.
4. She is als o suffering from speech impairment, and the expert
defer to the reports of the clinical psychologists.
5. She suffered an orthopaedic injury of the right ankle and
complains of right ankle pain.
6. The life expectancy of her has not been directly affected by the
accident.
7. Permanent serious disfigurement is evident.
8. Severe long -term mental or severe long -term behavioural
disturbance or disorder are evident. (My emphasis)
9. Expert suggested that she has a 1 – 2% chance of developing
epilepsy in future. (My emphasis)
The medico-legal report of the Occupational Therapist:
[18] The expert concluded as follows:
1. During the occupational therapy assessment, the plaintiff struggled to
perform various activities that require repetitive bilateral lower limbs
movements as well as dynamic postures due to right ankle pain.
2. She had limitations in performing various body postures such as
crouching and repetitive squatting. She demonstrated reduced
endurance in standing and walking for prolonged periods. She was
concluded to have limitations in lifting or carrying heavy objec ts.
During the lifting protocol , her lifting or carrying capacity was within
sedentary to light physical demands. These physical assessment
findings conclude compromised physical and functional capacity to
perform strenuous daily activities.
3. Neurocognitive and mood challenges were noted. The writer opined
that the presenc e of compromised neurocognitive , emotional and
psychological well-being may have a further negative impact on her
future work ability, interpersonal relations and day to day functioning.
She is likely to struggle remembering items and would make
unnecessary mistakes in cognitively demanding tasks.
4. The plaintiff aspired to be an educator and her work aspirations will
require her to have good physical and cognitive abilities. She will be
required to maintain prolonged standing, moving up and down and
perform bilateral lower limb function. Du e to her presenting
limitations, the writer notes the following expected challenges if she
works as an educator: reduced standing and walking endurance,
inability to participate in extra mural activities a nd poor memory. Her
limitations will limit her productivity at work if she manages to achieve
future career aspirations. Her injuries will make her a lesser
competitor in the open labour market compared to her peers.
5. She would thus require an understanding employer who will be willing
to accommodate her physical and cognitive limitations in future;
however, the writer notes that reasonable accommodation measures
are not guaranteed. Due to accident related challe nges, the plaintiff‘s
career or job option s are likely to be curtailed as she will have
difficulty in coping with highly physical and cognitively demanding
jobs.
6. The writer is of the opinion that the claimant’s injury will prevent her
from relying on her physical and cognitive abilities to secure and
maintain employment should she wish to find employment in future.
Her competitiveness in the open labour market is noted to be
compromised. She will always be a disadvantaged employee from
promotions and career growth. This validates that the plaintiff will not
be a fair competitor in the open labour market amongst her uninjured
peers. Her injuries will make her a lesser competitor in the open
labour market amongst her uninjured peers.
7. Considering the above , the plaintiff does not retain enough physical
vocational capacity to compete in the open labour market. She will
have difficulty meeting the physical demands of her occupation role
due to accident acquired impairment, her continued re tention by her
employer will entails sympathetic accommodation; this is not
guaranteed in future and therefore she has significantly diminished
future financial security. She is certainly a weaker competitor on the
open labour market due to injuries sustained in the accident.
The medico-legal report of the Industrial Psychologist:
Pre-accident performance: ( Had the accident not occurred)
[19] The plaintiff gross developmental milestones followed a normal
trajectory. She reportedly not presented with any cognitive difficulties as
there were no cognitive challenges reported. The plaintiff had the pre -
accident ability to pass Matric with a Bachelor Endorsement and opined
she could have been able to obtain post -school qualification at NQF
Level 7. She aspired to complete her studies and pursue a career as a
teacher (My emphasis)
Post-accident functioning:( Situation due to the accident)
[20] The expert noted and concluded as follows:
1. Following the accident and reported cognitive challenges, as well
as the psychometrics assessment results, it is unlikely that she will
still be able to obtain a NQF Level 7 qualification. She wil l
probably attain an NQF Level 3. She may need to be employed by
a sympathetic employer with deference to an Occupational and
Industrial Psychologist. (My emphasis)
2. Following the reported accident, she failed grade 10 and had to
repeat it. The plainti ff subsequently failed her grade 12 in 2022.
Her detailed complaints and difficulties are noted in the injuries
and complaints section (paragraphs 14 & 15 ) above.
3. From a cognitive perspective , Dr Mabika ( Neurosurgeon) noted
that the plaintiff sustain ed Mild head injury ( based on the history
of a brief loss of consciousness, amnesia of less than 24 hours
and GCS score recorded as 15/15 on arrival at the hospital.
Furthermore, Dr Kekana (Educational Psychologist) noted that
The accident has rendered h er academically vulnerable. The
prognosis of her passing grade 12 seems bleak. She will thus not
achieve her pre -accident potential. Her sequelae also include
psychological deficits as ind icated by Ms Guqa and Ms Maye
(Clinical psychologists) who submitted that she is irritable wit h
impact on her social function . she has short term memory
problems, distractibility ( with impact on being able to hold
conversations with others) and reduced concentration with noted
negative impact within her educational scholastic environment.
Her impairments are thus considered to negatively impact on her
intellectual and psychosocial functioning.
4. From a ph ysical perspective, it appears that the sequelae of the
injuries sustained have negatively affected her optimal physi cal
functioning. Dr Mafeelane (Orthopaedic Surgeon ) noted that her
injuries qualify under the narrative test for serious long-term
impairment or loss of body function. Co nsidering her reported
deficits, she will likely be precluded from performing work that is
physically demanding or strenuous in nature. Th is is concurred by
Ms Ndzungu ( Occupational Therapist) who noted that due to
accident related challenges, the plaintiff’s career or job options are
likely to be curtailed as she will have difficulty in coping with highly
physical and cognitively demanding jobs. Taking her diminished
residual physical capacity into account, it is therefore evident that
her overall physical functioning has been diminished and she can
no longer perform in her pre-accident physical capacity.
5. It is therefore anticipated that the sequelae of the injuries
sustained has considerably affected her optimal performance from
a scholast ic and vocational standpoint, of which will affect her
occupational freedom and functioning. The plaintiff will unlikely be
able to complete her matric as noted by Dr Kekana, which will limit
her employment to unskilled / semi -skilled work. It is trite tha t
people without matric are bound for employment which requires
physical agility in order to secure and maintain gainful
employment and such will be the case for the plaintiff. However,
when factoring in her physical sequelae she will not be a fair
competitor for unskilled / semi -skilled work with a reliance on her
physical agility in a saturated labour market. Taking into account
the limitations imposed o n her (both physical and mental ) , she
may suffer from considerable discrimination in terms of the type of
employment she will be able to accept or pursue in the open
labour market. It is therefore accepted that she has been rendered
an unequal and vulnerable competitor in the open labour market
and will be subject to extended periods of unemployment in the
open labour market
6. It is probable that the plaintiff will face lengthy periods of
unemployment, due to the limitations imposed on her (both
mentally and physically), she will not be able to compete on par
with her healthier, uninjured peers in the open labour market , she
has been rendered a vulnerable competitor for the rest of her
career , the plaintiff will likely remain unemployed for the rest of
her life.
Pre-accident:
[22] I considered the evidence in this regard, especially that an Industrial
Psychologist may choose which scales to use. In the circumstances , I
can find no reason to deal with the different scales and earnings
information. I prefer to make use of the Paterson grading system and
Robert Koch`s estimated salary scales, like we have been doing in our
Courts for many years now.
Career path and loss of future earnings:
[22] As already evident, there is no past loss of earnings applicable, only
future loss of earnings. Pre-accident the plaintiff aspired to complete her
studies and pursue a career as a teacher. Post -accident her aspirations
remain the same.
Past loss of earnings:
[23] Considering that the plaintiff was a student at the time of the accident, it
is surmised that she did not suffer past loss of income.
[24] In light of the totality of the evidence, I find that, on probabilities, with a
Degree (NQF Level 7) level of education, She would have entered the
open labour mar ket at a Paterson Level A3 , and progressed, reaching
her career ceiling earning at the uppe r quartiles of Paterson Level D1, at
age around 45 years, and she would have received inflationary increases
thereafter.
Future loss of earnings:
[25] It is probable that the severe sequelae of the injuries sustained has
affected the plaintiff’s optimal scholastic and vocational functioning and
thus, she will experience challenges competing on par with her healthier,
uninjured peers in the open labour ma rket. Owing to the nature of the
injuries sustained, she has been rendered an unequal competitor and
thus will no longer be able to perform in her pre -accident capacity. It is
opined that the difference between her pre -accident and post -accident
vocational potential be used to determine future loss of income.
[26] The Industrial Psychologist opines that she will work in the open labour
market until the normal retirement age of 65 years, depending on a
variety of factors, such as health status, personal ci rcumstances,
personal preferences and conditions of employment, etc.
[27] From the totality of the evidence, I agr ee with the opinion of the plaintiff’s
experts and the plaintiff is to be considered as practically unemployable
in the open labour ma rket. However, having said that, I do intend to
properly discount the vicissitudes of life, specifically in respect of the
plaintiff personally, by means of a reasonable and fair contingency.
[28] With regard to the post-accident future earnings, after consideration of all
the relevant evidence, I am of the view that the plaintiff will be a
jobseeker with NQF level 3 in the skills development sector who could
enter the open labour market as an unski lled labourer earning at the
lower quartiles of Paterson Level A3 and progress to a career ceiling
earning at the median quartiles at P aterson Level D1 at around the age
of 40 – 45 years, receiving inflationary increases thereafter.
Contingencies:
[29] It is trite that it is for the court to determine the percentage of
contingencies to be applied in a matter such as this.
[30] Contingencies discount the vicissitudes of life and it is a method used to
arrive at fair and reasonable compensation. The determination of
contingencies was dealt with in Southern Insurance Association Ltd v
Bailey N.O. 1984 (1) SA 98 (A) at 113G and 116G – 117A:
“Any enquiry into damages for loss of earning capacity is of its nature
speculative, because it involves a prediction as to the future, without the
benefit of crystal balls, soothsayers, augurs or oracles. All that the Court
can do is to make an estimate, which is often a very rough estimate, of
the present value of the loss.
…
Where the method of actuarial computation is adopted, it does not mean
that the trial Judge is ‘tied down by inexorable actuarial calculations’. He
has ‘a large discretion to award what he considers right’ ( per HOLMES
JA in Legal Assurance Co Ltd v Botes 1963 (1) SA 608 (A) at 614F).
One of the elements in exercising that discretion is the making of a
discount for ‘contingencies’ or the ‘vicissitudes of life’. These include
such matters as the possibility that the plaintiff may in the result have
less than a ‘normal’ expecta tion of life; and that he may experience
periods of unemployment by reason of incapacity due to illness or
accident, or to labour unrest or general economic conditions. The
amount of any discount may vary, depending upon the circumstances of
the case. See Van der Plaats v South African Mutual Fire and General
Insurance Co Ltd 1980 (3) SA 105 (A) at 114 - 5. The rate of the discount
cannot of course be assessed on any logical basis: the assessment must
be largely arbitrary and must depend upon the trial Judge's impression of
the case.
…
It is, however, erroneous to regard the fortunes of life as being always
adverse: they may be favourable. In dealing with the question of
contingencies, WINDEYER J said in the Australian case of Bresatz v
Przibilla (1962) 36 ALJR 212 (HCA) at 213:
‘It is a mistake to suppose that it necessarily involves a 'scaling down'.
What it involves depends, not on arithmetic, but on considering what the
future may have held for the particular individual concerned... (The)
generalisation that there must be a 'scaling down' for contingencies
seems mistaken. All 'contingencies' are not adverse: All 'vicissitudes ' are
not harmful. A particular plaintiff might have had prospects or chances of
advancement and increasingly remunerative employment. Why count the
possible buffets and ignore the rewards of fortune? Each case depends
upon its own facts. In some it may se em that the chance of good fortune
might have balanced or even outweighed the risk of bad.’”
[31] In the judgment of Gillbanks v Sigournay 1959 (2) SA 11 (N) the
following was stated at 17 E – F in respect of contingencies in an
estimation of a plaintiff`s claim for loss of earnings:
“In any estimate of a person's loss of earning capacity allowance must be
made for all contingencies including the accidents of life and certain
deductions must be made from the estimated gross income to allow for
unemployment benefits, insurance and so on. These contingencies would
include -
(i) a possibility that plaintiff's working life may have been less than
sixty-five years;
(ii) a possibility of his death before he reaches the age of sixty-five
years;
(iii) the likelihood of his suffering an illness of long duration;
(iv) unemployment;
(v) inflation and deflation;
(vi) alterations in the cost-of-living allowances;
(vii) an accident whilst participating in sport such as hockey or cricket,
or at any other time which would affect his earning capacity; and
(viii) any other contingency that might affect his earning capacity.”
[32] In the judgment of Dlamini v Road Accident Fund (59188/13) [2015]
ZAGPPHC 646 (3 September 2015) at paras [ 29] – [31] the court dealt
with and applied some guidelines referred to by Koch in The Quantum
Year Book:
[29] In his book The Quantum Yearbook, Koch states that when
assessing damages for los s of earnings or support it is usual for a
deduction to be made for general contingencies for which no explicit
allowance has been made in the actuarial calculation. The deduction is in
the prerogative of the court. General contingencies cover a wide range of
considerations which may vary from case to case and may include:
taxation, early death, loss of employment, promotion prospect, divorce
etc. (My emphasis)
[30] Koch refers to the following as some of the guidelines as regards
contingencies:
‘Normal contingencies’ as deductions of 5% for past loss and 15%
for future loss.
‘Sliding scale’: 1/2 % per year to retirement age, i.e. 25% for a child,
20% for a youth and 10% in the middle age and relies on Goodall v
President Insurance 1978 (1) SA 389.
‘Differential contingencies’ are commonly applied, that is to say one
percentage applied to earnings but for the accident, and a different
percentage to earnings having regard to the accident.
[31] When a court is called upon to exercise an arbitrary discretion that is
largely based on speculated facts it must do so with necessary
circumspection. In the absence of contrary evidence, the court can
assume that a reasonable person in the position of the plaintiff would
have succeeded to minimize the adverse hazards of life rather than to
accept them. Both favourable and adverse contingencies have to be
taken into account in determining an appropriate contingency deduction.
Bearing in mind that contingenc ies are not always adverse, the court
should in exercising its discretion lean in favour of the plaintiff as he
would not have been placed in the position where his income would have
to be the subject of speculation if the accident had not occurred.”
[33] Mr Mabunda submitted during argument that 30% contingency deduction
for loss of earnings should be applied. In the heads of argu ment a
different percentage of 50% contingency deduction for loss of earnings
was suggested that it should be applied as bein g fair and just. As a
result we sat with two different contingency proposals.
[34] There appears to be an actuarial report , the first one is dated 12 April
2022, drafted by Ms Valentini of Munro Forensic Actuaries, and which
was handed in by the plaintiff as exhibit “G”. The second “revised” report
was also drafted by Ms Valentini, also on request of the plaintiff`s
attorneys, dated 31 July 2023,
[35] Mr Mabunda is relying on the actuarial calculations , where con tingency
deductions of 50% is made and the total loss of future e arnings amounts
to R 6 855 600.
[36] Be that as it may, since I have made same findings similar to those
postulated in the actuarial calculations scenario presented by the
actuary, same are in order.
[37] With regard to the post -accident contingency , I take the following
relevant information into consideration in exercising my discretion:
1. She has been rendered a vulnerable employee/jobseeker in the
open labour market.
2. The Educational Psychologist concludes that she may struggle to
complete NQ F Level 3. She may need to be emp loyed by a
sympathetic employer.
3. The Clinical Psychologist concludes that the plaintiff ’s
neurocognitive deficits would affect her academic outcomes.
4. The Neurosurgeon agreed that severe long -term mental or severe
long-term behavioural disturbances or disorders are evident . The
expert also suggested that she has a 1 – 2% chance of developing
epilepsy in future.
5. The Industrial Psycologist also concludes that with psychological
limitations and potential health decline, her employability has been
compromised in the open labour market. The Educational
Psychologist opined that she may need to be employed by a
sympathetic employer. The Industria l psychologist agreed that
sympathetic employment is rare, thus she has been rendered an
unequal competitor and a vulnerable jobseeker in the open labour
market. She may experience difficulty securing and sustaining
employment in her injured state.
6. She will probably still need to be employed by a sympathetic
employer, due to her neurological and cognitive deficiencies. She is
not on par with jobseekers who do not have these deficiencies.
There is also the possibility of periods of unemployment in -
between.
[38] I am consequently of the view that a 50% contingency for future earnings
post-accident will be fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.
Costs:
[39] There is no reason why the costs are not to follow the outcome.
Order:
[40] The following order is consequently made:
1. The defendant shall furnish the plaintiff with an Undertaking, in
terms of Section 17(4)(a) of Act 56 of 1996, in respect of future
accommodation of the plaintiff in a hospital or nursing home or
treatment of or the rendering of a service or supplying of goods of a
medical and non -medical nature to the plaintiff (and after the costs
have been incurred and upon submission of proof thereof) arising
out of the injuries sustained in th e collision which occurred on 13
December 2018.
2. The plaintiff is awarded an amount of R 6 855 600 (Six Million Eight
Hundred Fifty Five Thousand Six Hundred Rands) as
compensation for future loss of earnings.
3. The issue of general damages is postponed sine die.
___________________________
JT Zitha
Acting Judge of the High Court
Delivered: This judgment is handed down electronically by uploading it to the
electronic file of this matter on CaseLines.
Appearances:
On behalf of the plaintiff: Adv. Mabunda
Instructed by: Bilibana Attorneys
On behalf of the defendant: No appearance