SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in
compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO.: 46374/2022
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO
Date: 4 February 2026
E van der Schyff
In the matter between:
ADVOCATE SAYED N.O. obo MG S[...] PLAINTIFF
and
THE ROAD ACCIDENT FUND DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT:
Van der Schyff J
[1] The abovementioned trial was allocated to me on 30 January 2026. Shortly after
rollcall the matter was heard. There was no appearance on behalf of the
defendant. Counsel brought an application in terms of Rule 38(2) and requested
that the court admit the reports of the experts appointed by the plaintiff’s attorney
of record. The application was granted.
2
2
[2] The minor, represented in these proceedings by Advocate Sayed, is herein after
referred to as the plaintiff. The facts of this case are that the plaintiff was 10 years
old when he was injured in a motor vehicle accident. He was a pedestria n who
attempted to cross a road. When he saw the oncoming vehicle, he tried to stop, but
slipped and fell, and the vehicle drove over his right leg. As a result, his right tibia
and fibula were fractured and re quired an open reduction internal fixation . No
evidence was presented indicating that the minor had suffered from a head injury
of any nature.
[3] Regarding the plaintiff’s claim for loss of income, counsel made submissions based
on the expert reports filed. Plaintiff claims an amount of R7 101 544.90 in respect
of the loss of earning capacity suffered by the minor. I reserved the order and
informed counsel that I intend to review the reports carefully before an order is
granted.
[4] After perusing the expert reports, I am of the view that it would be in the interest of
justice for the plaintiff to lead the viva voce evidence of five of the expert
witnesses, to wit, the Industrial Psychologist, Ms. T. Talmud, the Educational
Psychologist, Dr. J. Seabi, the Neuropsychologist Ms. I. Jonker, the Orthopaedic
Surgeon Dr. P Engelbrecht and the Occupational Therapist, Ms. K Cumming.
[5] Some of the issues I am grappling with are the development of what is referred to
as a ‘chronic pain syndrome’, while the Orthopaedic Surgeon’s report reflects that
on 30 November 2022, the minor did not require regular usage of analgesics. Dr.
Seabi should be provided the opportunity to elaborate fully, among others, on the
reasons why he formed the opinion that the accident is the cause of the minor’s
Full-Scale IQ to fall within the “Extremely Low” range. Ms. Jonker ’s evidence
regarding the duration and impact of, among the Depressive Disorde r for which
she proposed 40 sessions of psychotherapy and the improvement she foresaw if
she proposed 40 sessions of psychotherapy and the improvement she foresaw if
the remedial actions were taken . The court would also benefit from Ms. Jonker’s
explanation of how the injuries sustained could contribute to the severity of the
perceived decline of the minor’s cognitive functioning. The court is, among others,
interested to hear whether any of the expert witnesses who reported on the minor’s
perceived cognitive decline post-accident visited the school and considered the
3
3
curriculum followed and the assessment done in grades 1 to 3, as well as to how
the minor’s peers’ advancement through grades 1 to 3 and then further to the
higher grades, compares to his.
[6] In the result , the matter stands to be postponed sine die for the evidence to be
heard by me on a date to be arranged with my registrar.
ORDER
In the result, the following order is granted:
1. The matter is postponed sine die for evidence to be heard by Van der Schyff
J on a date to be arranged with Van der Schyff J’s registrar.
______________________
E van der Schyff
Judge of the High Court
Delivered: This judgment is handed down electronically by uploading it to the electronic file of
this matter on CaseLines. In the event that there is a discrepancy between the date the
judgment is signed and the date it is uploaded to CaseLines, the date the judgment is
uploaded to CaseLines is deemed to be the date that the judgment is handed down.
For the plaintiff: Adv. J. Bam
Instructed by: Ehlers Attorneys
Date of the hearing: 30 January 2026
Date of judgment: 4 February 2026