1
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, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 2021-54035
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO
DATE SIGNATURE
In the matter between:-
N[...] L[…] Plaintiff
and
THE ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Defendant
JUDGMENT
Mfenyana J:
Introduction
[1] The plaintiff instituted proceedings against the defendant for damages arising
from bodily injuries he sustained in a motor vehicle accident which occurred
on 13 May 2017. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was a pedestrian. He
was 17 years old. He sustained a head injur y: a haematoma to the left of his
forehead, a left front oparietal subdural haematoma, a left haemorrhagic
2
contusion, a right inferior frontal haematoma, a grade II splenic laceration, and
a small amount of hemoperitoneum. He also has psychological sequelae from
his accident-related injuries and post-traumatic epilepsy from the brain injury.
[2] The defendant opposes the claim.
[3] Both parties have enlisted the services of experts and filed expert reports. For
the plaintiff, a neurosurgeon, a specialist physician, a specialist neurologist , a
neuropsychologist, an audiologist and speech therapist, a plastic surgeon, an
occupational therapist, an educational psychologist and an industrial
psychologist filed reports. On behalf of the defendant, an occupational
therapist, an educational psychologist and an industrial psychologist prepared
reports.
[4] The occupational therapists and the industrial psychologists prepared joint
minutes in which they agree on all aspects of the plaintiff’s claim.
[5] The merits of the matter were previously settled on an 80/20 basis in favour of
the plaintiff. General damages were similarly settled on the same date, with
loss of earnings postponed sine die.
[6] The parties’ mediation attempts were unsuccessful. The matter proceeded
only in respect of loss of earnings , the plaintiff’s earning potential pre- and
post-morbid, the contingencies to be applied, and the issuing of an
undertaking as envisaged in section 17(4) of the Road Accident Fund Act
(RAF Act).
1
[7] At the hearing of the matter, the plaintiff’s counsel moved an application in
terms of rule 38(2) for the evidence of some expert witnesses to be given on
affidavit. These experts are:
1 Act 56 of 1996.
3
7.1. Dr Mutyaba, a neurosurgeon,
7.2. Mr Omond-Brown, a clinical neuropsychologist,
7.3. Dr Naidoo, a psychiatrist,
7.4. Prof Chait, a plastic surgeon,
7.5. Dr Botha, a specialist physician,
7.6. Ms Janse van Rensburg, an audiologist,
[8] Having satisfied myself with the merits of the substantive application brought
in that regard, I granted the order.
[9] The plaintiff called the following witnesses to testify:
9.1. Dr Seabi, an educational psychologist,
9.2. Dr Huth, a specialist neurologist,
9.3. Ms Stevens, an industrial psychologist
9.4. The plaintiff also testified on his own behalf.
Plaintiff’s evidence
[10] The plaintiff (Mr N[...]) testified that he does not remember the accident. He
further testified that he is currently doing a learnershi p for people with
disabilities, with iLearn. He further stated that he was enrolled on the specific
learnership programme because he has epilepsy. He receives a stipend of
R6000 per month.
[11] He told the court that a lot of things have changed because of the accident; he
has memory loss , his body sometimes shakes, he has headaches
approximately twice a week, and seizures sometimes up to four times a week;
he sometimes wets himself . He further testified that his last episode was the
previous Sunday. He further stated that the seizures do not last very long, but
the effects last for approximately 2 hours, even though he is taking his
medication.
4
[12] When asked by the court if he knows what triggers the seizures, Mr N[...]
testified that it is difficult to pinpoint , as he would sometimes have a really
good day, but still have a seizure or have a bad day but not have a seizure.
He added that he sometimes has a seizure in the mornings , and on those
days, he is not able to go to iLearn. He feels that he will not cope.
[13] During cross -examination, Mr N[...] testified that he aspired to study law .
When asked if he did not want to be an IT specialist, he conceded, stating
further that he did not pay much attention to his aspirations of studying law.
When asked if he was coping with the workload, he testified that he was just
managing as he completes the tasks he is given.
[14] He further stated that he is not in the same field he studied for, as his
learnership is in project management at NQF 5 level. He stated that he chose
to do the learnership as he was unemployed and did not want to simply stay
at home doing nothing. He added that the learnership might be paving the
way to a career IT.
[15] Ms Tivana, representing the defendant, asked Mr N[...] why he was not
submitting any job applications. He conceded that he was not actively
applying for jobs because he wanted to first complete his learnership. When
questioned about his tendency not to finish what he starts, he explained that
he prefers to study in a sequential manner, starting with the diploma and then
moving on to the degree.
Other relevant information
[16] In the further information gleaned from the various expert reports, it is
recorded that , according to the plaintiff, his mother did not experience any
antenatal or perinatal complications. He was a full-term baby. His mother also
5
added that the plaintiff achieved his developmental milestones within normal
limits.
[17] The plaintiff reported that his mother completed Grade 12 and works as a
health worker, while his stepfather is an upholsterer. He has three half -
siblings: two are 16 and 15 years old, in Grades 11 and 10, and one has
completed Grade 10 and is studying for a safety management certificate. He
does not have a relationship with his biological father.
[18] He described himself as a happy person who made friends easily and was
active and outgoing prior to the accident. He played soccer and hoped to play
professionally someday. Post -accident, although he is still a well -behaved
young man, he is no longer outgoing and prefers to be by himself, as crowded
places irritate him. He gets irritated easily. He does not participate in any
sport.
[19] His primary schooling was uneventful and progressed without any hiccups.
After graduating from nursery school, he went to Dikishe Primary School ,
where he completed Grade 5. Thereafter, he went to Kliptown Primary School
for Grades 6 and 7. He thereafter commenced his high school at Missourilaan
Secondary School. He failed Grade 10 in 2017 and repeated it successfully
the following year. At the time of the accident, he was repeating Grade 10.
After the accident, he progressed to Grade 11 and 12 at the same school. He
obtained an endorsement for admission to a bachelor’s degree in 2019.
[20] In 2020, he took a gap year. In 2021, he enrolled for an IT Diploma, which he
completed in 2023. In 2024, he tried to convert his diploma into a degree but
found the demands of the degree challenging and ultimately dropped out of
the program . In 2025, he enrolled in a learnership in project management ,
specifically designed for disabled people.
Evidence of the specialist neurologist
6
[21] Dr Huth testified that Mr N[...] suffered a severe head injury, which resulted in
post-traumatic epilepsy. He further testified that medication or dosage may
sometimes need to be adjusted. He, however, added that only 65% of
epileptics achieve control of between 50% and 80% on a multi -drug regimen;
there are no guarantees. He stated that the medication has serious side
effects, but in recent years, newer drugs with fewer side effects have
emerged.
[22] Dr Huth further stated that epilepsy is a complete change of lifestyle, as a
patient might present with intolerance to certain foods and may also develop
symptoms from using certain medications. In the workplace, he stated, it
would require a sympathetic employer , as epilepsy sufferers are stigmatised
and categorised as disabled, as is evident from the plaintiff’s case, who was
enrolled for a learnership for disabled people because of the epilepsy.
[23] During cross-examination, Dr Huth was asked about the difference between a
head injury and a brain injury. He testified that the plaintiff suffered a severe
brain injury with intracranial bleeding. He reiterated that the plaintiff may have
shown symptoms or intolerance to certain foods, which is not unusual for
epileptics.
[24] Regarding the nexus between the plaintiff’s illness and the accident, he stated
that even though the epilepsy developed four years after the accident, the
plaintiff has no prior history of seizures, and his conclusion is therefore that it
is a result of the accident.
Evidence of the educational psychologists
[25] In his report, Dr Seabi states that according to the information he received, the
plaintiff sustained an intracranial injury. His Glasgow C oma Scale (GCS) was
7/15, and he was bleeding from his mouth at the time of the accident. He had
no cervical or chest abnormalities. Three days later, on 16 May 2017, his GCS
7
was recorded as 14/15 and rose to 15/15 on 17 May 2017. He remained in the
hospital for approximately one week.
[26] Dr Seabi reported that since assessing the plaintiff in 2022, there has been a
significant change in his psychological functioning, behaviour and academic
performance. He reported that the plaintiff is experiencing generalised anxiety,
depressive symptomology and features of post -traumatic stress disorder . He
also experiences frequent headaches, especially after an epileptic seizure and
continues to have episodes of epilepsy despite being on Epilim.
[27] Dr Seabi further reported that the plaintiff scored low marks in his cognitive
functioning test and presented with a low average IQ, with poor mental
speed, so was his ability to use logical thinking and abstract concepts. He
obtained a high average mark in the information subtest, which measures his
ability to acquire, retain and retrieve information. Notably, his working memory
and short-term auditory memory are in the lower average range.
[28] He added that the plaintiff does not feel good enough, has moderate
depression and shows symptoms of severe post-traumatic depression.
[29] He further stated that the available information shows that the plaintiff had
performed well in school, despite failing Grade 10 due to playfulness and peer
pressure. Post - accident, his performance has deteriorated, and he finds
studying to require a lot of effort. He experiences difficulties concentrating and
recalling what he had studied. He is forgetful and misplaces items easily. He
has been on Epilim 500 since September 2021 to manage his epileptic
seizures, which occur once a month.
[30] Dr Seabi opined that Mr N[...]’s s cholastic problems , which include
mathematical difficulties (presented in oral and written forms), delayed reading
and poorly developed visual memory of words , “suggest that he will probably
experience trouble coping with the demands of higher education. He will
experience trouble coping with the demands of higher education. He will
probably give up when he perceives tasks to be difficult , as he did in the
8
assessment. These difficulties will inadvertently affect his academic self -
esteem. A body of empirical evidence indicates that students who experience
repeated scholastic difficulties end up dropping out of their studies due to a
complex of psychological constructs around demotivation, peer pressure,
efforts to protect one's self -confidence, loss of interest, low self -esteem, and
learned helplessness.”
[31] Given his family background and available information, Dr Seabi surmises that
Mr N[...]’s pre-accident intellectual ability can be estimated at average to high.
He postulates that he would likely have progressed to an Honours degree
(NQF8). Post -morbid, he experiences seizures, has a disfiguring scar on his
forehead and lip, a weak jaw and is unable to carry heavy objects.
[32] He also presents with emotional difficulties , which include post -traumatic
stress anxiety in the form of hypervigilance and hyperarousal; he gets easily
startled, has unwanted upsetting memories of the accident, which evoke
physical reactions such as rapid breathing. He presents with symptoms of
major depressive disorder, specifically, irritability, sadness, anger outbursts,
slowed thinking, trouble concentrating on his work, loss of interest in activities,
and withdrawn behaviour. He also presents with low levels of motivation. For
the psychological sequelae, Dr Seabi deferred to the clinical psychologist.
[33] In his addendum report, Dr Seabi noted that the plaintiff completed his
diploma, although with great difficulty. In 2024, he attempted to convert his
diploma to a degree but dropped out as he could not cope with the study
demands and was often sick. He passed only three of her five semester
modules. He added that the plaintiff reported that his health is gradually
deteriorating as he now has seizures twice a week. He takes Epilim, which
causes his hands and legs to shake. He experiences headaches and usually
wakes up feeling tired after a seizure.
wakes up feeling tired after a seizure.
[34] During his testimony, Dr Seabi stated that it was a wise decision for the
plaintiff to enrol in a diploma program, as he would likely have struggled to
9
meet the demands of a degree. He noted that while the plaintiff is capable of
functioning cognitively, he does so at a diminished level and with significant
difficulty, making it unsustainable in the long run.
[35] Dr Prag, the defendant’s educational psychologist, opines that He concluded
that “there is a clear and direct causal link between the motor vehicle accident
and the deterioration in his functioning as well as his quality of life”. Dr Prag
notes further that “a brain injury of this nature is expected to result in long -
term neuropsychological difficulties. He adds that the plaintiff’s current
performance is not in keeping with his pre- morbid functioning and agrees with
Dr Seabi that he would have been able to complete an Honours Degree had
the accident not occurred. He further agreed that post -morbid, he would not
go further than an NQF 6 qualification.
[36] Dr Prag noted that from information received from the plaintiff's mother, the
plaintiff’s maternal uncle also suffers from epilepsy following a beating on the
head with a stick. He also noted that there was no collateral information
regarding the plaintiff’s pre- accident school performance, only information
received from the plaintiff and his mother. Dr Prag notes that it should be
noted that the plaintiff would have entered the labour market a year later, as
he had failed Grade 10.
[37] Dr Prag referred to specific literature, which indicates that there is evidence
that some individuals with epilepsy slow down or regress in their mental
development. He opined that the plaintiff’s cognitive functioning has
decreased, probably due to the frequent seizures he experiences . He ,
however, deferred to the neuropsychologist and the neurosurgeon in this
regard.
[38] He noted that the plaintiff is not functioning as he did before the accident. He
would have been able to obtain an Honours Degree. Post-morbid, he suffers
from lapses of concentration, poor working memory, a depressed cognitive
10
profile and distractibility , which are additional barriers to his studies . He will
thus remain at NQF 6.
Joint minute of the industrial psychologists
[39] Ms Stevens, the plaintiff’s industrial psychologist and Ms Magethi, the
industrial psychologist appointed by the defendant , note the agreement
between the educational psychologists that the plaintiff would have
progressed to NQF 8, ‘but for’ the accident. They agreed that pre- accident,
the plaintiff would have followed a similar educational and career path and
obtained an NQF 8 qualification by the end of 2025 and would have secured
employment within 6 to 12 months of completing his studies. He would have
earned a basic salary graded at the Paterson B5 median level. With further
training, he would have progressed and reached his career ceiling between
the ages of 45 and 50. Thereafter, he would have earned inflationary
increases until retirement at the age of 65.
[40] Taking the accident into account, t he industrial psychologists accept that the
educational psychologists ’ agreement that the plaintiff will, in all likelihood ,
progress only up to NQF 6 obtained over a period of four years. In this regard,
it is worth noting that the plaintiff obtained his NQF 6 qualification in 202 3,
over a period of three years.
[41] As to his earnings , it was noted that the plaintiff was employed as a general
worker earning R150.00 per day for five days. They further agree that the
plaintiff incurred no past loss of ear nings, as he was a scholar when the
accident occurred. The industrial psychologists agree that due to the plaintiff’s
cognitive deficits , as pointed out by the relevant experts , his pre- morbid
scenario will not prevail.
[42] Within 6 to 12 months of obtaining his diploma, he would enter the labour
market and earn a basic salary at the Paterson B1 median, whereafter he
would receive inflationary increases until retirement at the age of 65. The
would receive inflationary increases until retirement at the age of 65. The
industrial psychologists, however, opine that the plaintiff may not even be able
11
to earn at the suggested level or sustain the earnings for an extended period
of up to 41 years until he reaches the postulated retirement age of 65. They
reference the
[43] The industrial psychologists referenced the occupational therapists’
postulations that, should the epilepsy remain uncontrolled with further
cognitive decline, the plaintiff will be limited to sheltered employment, which
will be difficult to come by. To cater for this eventuality, they propose higher
contingencies, noting further that this falls within the discretion of the court.
Joint minute between the occupational therapists
[44] Mses Latakgomo/ Phasha and Cummings agree that the plaintiff’s
occupational selection has been further reduced by the post -traumatic
epilepsy. They further agree that his cognitive deficits may be exacerbated by
his uncontrolled epilepsy , and according to Ms Cummings , possibly the
anticonvulsant medication he is currently taking. Consequently, they agree
that he is currently limited to simple, structured routine tasks and working
under supervision, within a sedentary or light physical occupation. He cannot
be considered an equal competitor in the open labour market.
Discussion
[45] Having perused the reports of both educational psychologists, who are in
agreement on the pre- and post-morbid postulations,
a. that there is a causal link between the accident and deteriorating
functioning and quality of life;
b. that the brain injury suffered by the plaintiff has long- term effects on his
neuropsychological functioning;
c. that his post -morbid performance is not in keeping with his pre- morbid
functioning, and that his cognitive functioning has decreased;
d. that the plaintiff would have completed an Honours degree (NQF8);
e. that post-morbid, the plaintiff will likely not achieve beyond NQF6,
12
it is indisputable that the plaintiff would not be able to compete in the open
labour market.
[46] Accordingly, the industrial psychologists used the agreements between the
educational psychologists as a basis for their joint minutes. The joint minute of
the industrial psychologists is, in turn, the basis for the actuarial calculation,
which has been computed to factor in the cap. However, I do not agree with
the contingencies applied.
[47] In today’s circumstances, where unemployment is high, employers are spoilt
for choice. They would naturally prefer employees who would hit the ground
running and who do not need to be accommodated. All the experts agree that
the plaintiff falls into this category. Resultantly, I do not agree with the
defendant that the plaintiff has only suffered a capacity loss. This would
require that the plaintiff should endure employment (if he does secure it).
[48] It was argued on behalf of the defendant that the cause of Mr N[...] ’s epileptic
seizures is unknown and could have developed pre- or post - accident. This
directly contradicts the conclusions reached by the experts, including Dr Prag,
the defendant’s own expert, which is further reinforced by the opinion of the
specialist neuropsychologist. The defendant’s sentiments thus seek to
disavow the opinions expressed by the experts, including the defendant’s own
experts. This cannot be. It is settled law that parties are bound by the
opinions expressed in the joint minutes.
2
[49] It is further the defendant’s contention that with the possibility of controlled
episodes as described by Dr Huth, the issue of the plaintiff only qualifying for
sheltered employment should not arise. Dr Huth stated in no uncertain terms
that there is no guarantee that with a change in the plaintiff’s medication or the
dosage, the issue would be completely eradicated. When that will be, is also
2 HAL obo MML v MEC for Health, Free State 2022 (3) SA 571 (SCA).
13
unknown, and for obvious reasons, the defendant cannot proffer any
suggestion on this regard.
[50] Regarding the sequelae of the plaintiff’s injuries, a GC S of 7 /15 is no mean
feat. The fact that the plaintiff started experiencing seizures four years after
the accident is , in my view, an indication of the sequelae and possibly things
to come. This can be addressed by adjusting the contingencies allowed. That
there was a causal link between the accident and the epilepsy suffered by the
plaintiff was agreed to by all the relevant experts. A ny misgivings the
defendant may have expressed during cross-examination are of no moment.
[51] It is so that contingencies fall within the discretion of the court, exercised
judiciously. In this regard, I align myself with the sentiments expressed by
Motha J in
Coertse v Road Accident Fund 3, that “as much as the court is not
slavishly tied to actuarial calculations, it is similarly not bound by the so- called
normal contingency allowances… .”
[52] I am of the view that the appropriate contingencies to be applied in the
circumstances would be 35% ‘but for’ the accident. I would leave the
contingencies ‘having regard to’ the accident at 5%. Having regard to this, I
requested the parties to provide me with a new calculation, taking into account
these contingencies in view of the cap.
[53] In Goodall v President Insurance Co4, the court held that:
“In the assessment of a proper allowance for contingencies, arbitrary
considerations must inevitably play a part, for the art of foretelling the future,
so confidently practised by ancient prophets, soothsayers and by modern
authors of a certain type of almanack, is not numbered among the
qualifications of a judicial officer.”
4
3 Case No. 85818/2016, ZAGPPHC (Unreported - 2 December 2024).
4 1978 (1) 389 (W).
4 At 392H.
14
[54] The purpose of an award for loss of earnings is to place the claimant in the
position they would have been in had the accident not happened.
Protection of funds
[55] In view of the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, which impact his cognitive
functioning, it would be prudent that the funds to be awarded to the plaintiff
should be protected. I have considered several options and have concluded
that a Trust should be formed within a period of 6 months from the date of this
order. The Trust should include the plaintiff’s mother as one of the trustees
and should be exempted from providing security.
[56] Consequently, the future loss of income suffered by the plaintiff is an amount
of R8 881 875.00. Taking into account the apportionment of 80/20%, this
works out to R7 105 500.00 (seven million, one hundred and five thousand ,
five hundred rand).
Order
[57] In the result, I make the following order:
a. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff an amount of R7 105 500.00 in
respect of the plaintiff’s loss of earnings.
b. The plaintiff’s attorneys, A Wolmarans Inc are directed to establish a Trust
for the benefit of the plaintiff within a period of six months from the date of
this order, in which Trust the plaintiff’s mother shall be appointed as one of
the trustees and exempted from providing security. Should the Trust not be
established within the stipulated period, this order will lapse, and the
plaintiff will be required to approach the court on good cause to seek a
reinstatement of the order.
c. The defendant shall issue to the plaintiff an undertaking in accordance with
section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act to compensate the plaintiff
for 80% of the costs of his future accommodation in a hospital or nursing
15
home or his treatment and provision of services or goods to the plaintiff,
arising from the injuries he sustained in the motor vehicle accident which
occurred on 13 May 2017.
d. In the event of the aforesaid amount not being paid on 14 (fourteen) days
from the date of this order, the Defendant shall be liable for interest on the
amount at the prevailing interest rate, calculated from the 15th calendar day
after the date of this Order to the date of payment.
e. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff’s taxed or agreed party and party
costs on the High Court tariff in respect of quantum, up to and including 20
November 2025, including the costs consequent upon the employment of
counsel, taxed on scale B , and the reasonable, qualifying fees of the
following experts:
i. Dr Mutyaba, Neurosurgeon;
ii. Dr Huth, Neurologist;
iii. Mr D Ormond-Brown, Clinical Neuropsychologist;
iv. Dr Naidoo, Psychiatrist;
v. Prof Chait, Plastic Surgeon;
vi. Dr Botha, Specialist Physician;
vii. Ms N Janse Van Rensburg, Audiologist;
viii. Dr J Seabi, Educational Psychologist;
ix. Ms K Cummings, Occupational Therapist;
x. Ms S Stevens, Industrial Psychologist; and
xi. Mr R Immermann (GW Jacobson), Actuary.
Postea:
[58] Consequent upon the handing down of the judgment on 23 February 2026, it
was brought to my attention by the plaintiff’s attorneys that the calculations
upon which this court applied the apportionment of 80/20% in favour of the
plaintiff were incorrect. This was occasioned by the fact that the
16
apportionment had not been actuarially calculated, and the court deducted the
percentage of the apportionment after the cap had been applied.
Consequently, the calculations arrived at by this court are patently incorrect.
The incidental order as stipulated in order [a] is similarly incorrect.
[59] The plaintiff obtained a revised actuarial calculation, which takes into account
the 80/20% merits apportionment and applied the apportionment after the
contingencies, but before the cap.
[60] I requested the defendant to make submissions, if any , on 05 March 2026 on
the issue raised by the plaintiff. No submissions were received.
[61] On the strength of the decision in Jonosky v RAF
5 that statutory provisions
which interfere with elementary rights of a claimant should be interpreted to
cause the least invasion of such rights , I am inclined to agree with the
approach followed by the plaintiff. In addition, in Nel v Road Accident Fund 6,
the court held that ‘(i)t is inconceivable that a different approach than that
adopted for the deduction of contingencies could be justified with regard to the
deduction for contributory negligence.’
[62] I am indebted to the legal representatives for pointing out this discrepancy.
[63] Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court confers the power to this court to
‘in addition to any other powers it may have, mero motu or upon the
application of any party affected, rescind or vary:
(a) …
(b) An order or judgment in which there is an ambiguity, or a patent error or
omission, but only to the extent of such ambiguity, error or omission … . “
5 2013 (5) SA 356 (GSJ) para 11.
6 [2015] ZAGPPHC 817; 2016 (2) SA 517 (GP) para 11.
17
[63] Consequently, I proceed to correct the error in the above judgment to the
extent of the miscalculation, by:
(i) removing the amount of R7 105 500 in paragraph [a] and
(ii) replacing it with the corrected amount of R7 788 077.
(iii) correcting order [a] to the extent of the error.
[64] In the result, I make the following order:
a. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff an amount of R7 788 077.00 in
respect of the plaintiff’s loss of earnings.
b. The plaintiff’s attorneys, A Wolmarans Inc are directed to establish a
Trust for the benefit of the plaintiff within a period of six months from the
date of this order, in which Trust the plaintiff’s mother shall be appointed
as one of the trustees and exempted from providing security. Should
the Trust not be established within the stipulated period, this order will
lapse, and the plaintiff will be required to approach the court on good
cause to seek a reinstatement of the order.
c. The defendant shall issue to the plaintiff an undertaking in accordance
with section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act to compensate the
plaintiff for 80% of the costs of his future accommodation in a hospital
or nursing home or his treatment and provision of services or goods to
the plaintiff, arising from the injuries he sustained in the motor vehicle
accident which occurred on 13 May 2017.
d. In the event of the aforesaid amount not being paid on 14 (fourteen)
days from the date of this order, the Defendant shall be liable for
interest on the amount at the prevailing interest rate, calculated from
the 15th calendar day after the date of this Order to the date of
payment.
18
e. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff’s taxed or agreed party and party
costs on the High Court tariff in respect of quantum, up to and including
20 November 2025, including the costs consequent upon the
employment of counsel, taxed on scale B, and the reasonable,
qualifying fees of the following experts:
i. Dr Mutyaba, Neurosurgeon;
ii. Dr Huth, Neurologist;
iii. Mr D Ormond-Brown, Clinical Neuropsychologist;
iv. Dr Naidoo, Psychiatrist;
v. Prof Chait, Plastic Surgeon;
vi. Dr Botha, Specialist Physician;
vii. Ms N Janse Van Rensburg, Audiologist;
viii. Dr J Seabi, Educational Psychologist;
ix. Ms K Cummings, Occupational Therapist;
x. Ms S Stevens, Industrial Psychologist; and
xi. Mr R Immermann (GW Jacobson), Actuary.
S Mfenyana
Judge of the High Court
Date heard: 19 – 20 November 2026
Date of judgment: 17 February 2026
Date corrected: 10 March 2026
This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’
representatives by email and by uploading the judgment onto Caselines. The date of
delivery of the judgment is deemed to be 10 March 2026.
19
Appearances
For the plaintiff:
Counsel: A M Van der Merwe
Instructed by A Wolmarans Inc.
For the defendant:
Counsel: T Tivana
Instructed by: State Attorney, Johannesburg