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: 79533/16
In the matter between:
MOHAMMED AMEEN VALLEY Plaintiff/Applicant
and
THE ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Defendant /Respondent
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED.
…………..…………............. ……………………
SIGNATURE DATE
I
This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected and
is electronically circulated to the parties/their legal representatives by e -mail and by
uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on Caselines. The date for hand -down
is deemed to be 22 May 2026.
JUDGMENT
MASHAMBA AJ
INTRODUCTION
[1] The plaintiff, Mohammed Ameen Valley, a male person, born on 19 May 1990,
has instituted an action against the Road Accident Fund (“the defendant”) for
damages resulting from personal injuries sustained on 26 March 2015, at N12,
Freedom Park, Johannesburg, Gauteng Province.
[2] The plaintiff was 2 4 years old when the accident occurred and currently 35
years old, employed as an accountant.
[3] The defendant’s defence was struck out on 05 March 2024 as a result of the
defendant’s failure to participate in litigation.
[4] On 30 January 2019, the court ordered that the defendant should compensate
the plaintiff 100% of his proven or agreed damages.
[5] The matter was before this court on a default basis on 30 March 2026.
ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT
[6] The court is called to determine the plaintiff’s claim for general damages, past
and future medical expenses, past and future loss of earnings. In terms of the
amended particulars of claim, th e plaintiff claimed an estimated amount of
R 13 600 000.00 calculated as follows;
6.1 Past Medical Expenses R 100 000.00
6.2 Future Medical Expenses R 1 500 000.00
6.3 Past and future Loss of Income R 9 500 000.00
6.4 General Damages R 2 500 000.00
[7] The defendant, previously was ordered to issue an undertaking certificate in
terms of section 17(4) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, as amended,
therefore, future medical expenses are to be covered by the undertaking
certificate.
[8] The plaintiff made an application in terms of Rule 38(2) of the Uniform Rules
of Court, pleading that the experts’ evidence to be adduced in court should be
given on affidavits. The court granted the above-mentioned application.
[9] The plaintiff appointed several medical experts, to prepare their respective
reports in order to substantiate his claim. The plaintiff relied on the following
expert reports;
9.1 Dr Engelbretcht (Orthopaedic Surgeon)
9.2 Dr Smuts (Neurologist)
9.3 Dr Kruger (Neurosurgeon)
9.4 Dr D Deklerk (Neurosurgeon)
9.5 Dr Mazabow (Clinical Psychologist)
9.6 Dr Nel (Psychiatrist)
9.7 Natash Van der Heyde (Occupational Therapist)
9.8 Dr W Pretorius (Industrial Psychologist)
9.9 Munro (Actuaries)
[10] The plaintiff made his submissions based on the conclusions of the medical
experts’ reports duly filed before this court. The court evaluated the probabilities
of all experts’ opinion as per their respective reports. The court considered the
case of Prince v Road Accident Fund 1, where the court held at paragraphs
55, 56 and 59 in the evaluation of the probabilities in respect of expert evidence.
“Sufficient proof is established when an inference can be drawn about the fact in issue,
providing that the inference is consistent with all the proven facts. In civil matters, it
suffices if the inference is the most probable inference. Further, once prima facie proof
or evidence has been provided, that is proof calling for an answer. This becomes
conclusive proof on the point in issue usually if no evidence is produced to rebut it.
The fact of the matter is, however, that the Court must at the end of the case reviews
all the evidence and evaluate this according to the applicable primary criterion. It must
be accepted, of course, that where, for example, a Defendant fails to produce
1 (CA 143/2017) [2018] ZAECGHC 20 (20 March 2018). Par 55, 56 & 59
evidence, this does not mean necessarily that the opponent’s version in the case, falls
to be accepted. The acceptance of Plaintiff’s case depends on the probative strength
of Plaintiff’s case, being whether it is sufficient to cast, an evidential burden o n the
Defendant to present evidence.”
PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES AND EVIDENCE
[11] The medical records from Lenmed Hospital show that the plaintiff had the
following injuries; head injury, open wound on the lower lip or small laceration
of the lip, GCS was 15/15, awake, not confused, No loss of consciousness and
C spine no tender.
[12] Dr P Engelbrecht, an Orthpaedic surgeon (Ortho), examined the plaintiff on
05 May 2017 and 08 September 2025. He noted the following injuries; soft
tissue injury to cervical spine, soft tissue injury of thoracic spine, Head injury,
Laceration to lower lip, injury to the chest, both arms and a lower leg. The
Ortho indicated that from Lenmed hospital, CT scan of the brain was
performed, Frontal lobe haemorrhagic contusion was noted. The Ortho also
noted that the clinical notes indicated a Gastro-intestinal bleeding and the
patient was put on Nexiam2.
[13] The Ortho further noted that the plaintiff complained of stiffness of the neck,
pain in the upper cervical spine which indicated to be sharp in nature, the pain
is intermittent and occasional experienced at night. The back pain with some
stiffness, mid-back area, thoraco-lumber spine juncture. Rotation aggravates
2 Caseline18.08-10
symptoms of a back pain , intermittent in nature, localizes in lower back.
Headache remains a problem as well as loss of concentration and loss of
memory3.
[14] Dr J.H Kruger, neurosurgeon, (Neuro), examined the plaintiff on 11
September 2025. The Neuro, noted that on admission to Lenmed Hospital,
The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) was 15/15, no mention was made of loss of
consciousness or any secondary event that took place, that could have
aggravated any injuries sustained in the accident. A CT scan of the brain was
processed after the accident and it was recorded normal. The Neuro,
indicated that according to RAF 1 form, the plaintiff had a frontal lobe
haemorrhagic contusion 4. The Neuro, further noted that the plaintiff was
admitted to the intensive care unit for two -three days and then discharged
home. When the plaintiff was discharged home, he was neurologically intact
and able to attend the activities of daily living5.
[15] The neurosurgeon indicated that he would not usually expect cognitive mental
problems, executive mental problems, educational problems or
psychological/psychiatric complaints as a consequence of a mild traumatic
brain injury. In 15% of patients, long term sequelae may be present. The neuro
referred back to the report of the clinical psychologist, Dr M Mazabow6.
[16] Dr D De Kerk, a neurosurgeon, assessed the plaintiff on 10 October 2017, he
3 Caseline 18.08-121
4 Caseline 18.08-136
5 Caseline 18.08-137
6 Caseline 18.08-140
mentioned in his report that CT scan was performed and that the results were
reported normal7. Dr De Klerk mentioned that the plaintiff had a previous motor
vehicle accident and indicated that as a result of the said accident, the plaintiff
had a minor injury of his abdomen. Dr De Klerk reported that the plaintiff was
not admitted as a result of the injury incurred from the previous motor vehicle8.
[17] Dr De Klerk concluded that although the CT brain is normal, but the head injury
might be more serious. The neurosurgeon indicated that he considered that the
plaintiff is more gifted as he was doing his articles but the fact that he was asked
by his employer to resign as a result of his poor memory and poor
concentration. Dr De Klerk classified the head injury as a moderate diffuse
traumatic brain injury without focal component9.
[18] Dr J.A Smuts, the neurologist, examined the plaintiff on 27 February 2018 and
08 September 2025, the neurologist opined that the plaintiff sustained a
significant head injury and was left with mild brain injury but possible mild to
moderate frontal brain damage10.
[19] Dr M Mazabow, neuropsychologist, examined the plaintiff on 09
September 2025 and 15 September 2025, respectively. The
neuropsychologist reported that the plaintiff had a previous accident in 2014
and that he was hospitalized for a day or two but with no requirement for
treatment, as after laparoscopy he was found with no symptoms. The
neuropsychologist reported that the plaintiff failed his accounting honours
7 Caseline 18.08-26
8 Caseline 18.08-26
9 Caseline 18.08-33
10 Caseline 18.08-180
degree in 2013, again in 2014 and that in 2015 he was repeating the
accounting honours degree for the third time.
[20] The neuropsychologist indicated that t he plaintiff overall clinical presentation
and his neuropsychological test -results (which are stable across the 7 years
period) and his ongoing cognitive behavioural and interpersonal changes,
would be keeping with the expected sequelae of a traumatic brain injury of the
nature/severity sustained in the accident, compounded by effects of severe
depression and anxiety, and of chronic pain11.
[21] Natasha Van Der Heyde, an Occupational Therapist (OT), examined the
plaintiff on 18 June 2020, 08 September 2025 and 18 September 2025. The OT
opined that, in regard to the plaintiff residual work capacity, he displayed the
strength for working up to medium demand on an occasional basis and meets
the demand level for his pre and post-accident jobs as a leaner accountant. The
plaintiff social presentation has again not on par with the expected of individuals
with his level of education with yawning and psychological fatigue noted 60
minutes into assessment. He again conversed a soft monoton e voice with his
volition and energy level very low.
[22] The OT further opined that the plaintiff remains significantly compromised and
disadvantaged in comparison with his peers. Considering his post -accident
11 Caseline 18.08-166
employment history OT believes it is unlikely that he will manage to secure and
maintain employment in the open labor market12.
Postulations of the Plaintiff’s Loss of Earnings
[23] Dr W Pretorious, an Industrial Psychologist (IP), examined the plaintiff on the
30 June 2020 , 28 April 2022 , 11 September 2025 and last 04 March 2026 . I
would consider the plaintiff’s past and future loss of as postulated by the IP .
The IP postulated the loss as follows;
23.1 Uninjured Earning Postulation- The IP considered that from 2015/02/01
until 2017/02/01 the plaintiff earned a gross income of R 212 239 per
annum and assumed he would have probably passed his ITC and APC
exams during this 3 years period. He would have been accredited by
SAICA as Chartered Accountant. He would have probably secured work
as a Management Accountant, Auditor or similar position in either non-
corporate or corporate sector. He would have earned a salary of
R 526 000.00 which is Paterson C1, with straight line growth to age 35. He
would from age 35, he would probably become a supervisor / manager
earning R 1 723 000 per annum, which is Paterson D4 according to Koch
2025 earning corporate scale. Accept inflation growth until the retirement
age at 67.5 years.
23.2 Injured Earnings Postulation- The IP assume that the plaintiff will
probably loss his current employment by end of 2025/12. Thereafter he
will probably remain unemployed for 6 months whilst looking for
12 Caseline 18.08-199
sympathetic employment in a supervised environment. The IP assumes
that from June 2026, the plaintiff will probably re-enter the open labour
market as accommodated Bookkeeper, Accounting Clerk or similar in a
supervised environment, probably securing work in the non-corporate
sector. The IP assumes earnings from July 2026, in the amount of R
39 057.67 per month, which is R 468 692.04 per annum. The IP assumes
that for calculation R 411 596.02 per annum, which is the value between
median and upper quartile of Koch’s 2025 skilled scale.
23.3 The IP indicated that due to the plaintiff symptomologies and need for
accommodation, he can be expected to work in the non-corporate sector
for the remainder of his career with inflation related growth until retirement.
The IP assumed early retirement of 2 years and 3 months, thus for
calculations by age 62 and 9 months.
[24] The IP considered that at the time of accident, 26/03/2015, the plaintiff worked
as a trainee accountant (clerkship) at RSM since 01/02/2015 , busy with his 3
years clerkship with his gross taxable income of R212 239 per annum. The IP
noted that he failed The S outh African Institute of Charted Initial Test of
Competence (ITC), as well as Pro fessional Competence exams in 2016 until
2021. The plaintiff finally passed in 2022 and has been accredited Charted
Accountant since 2023. The IP indicated that the plaintiff was dismissed in
2017/03/30 due to poor performance as a result of the injuries allegedly
incurred in the accident in question.
[25] The IP accepted that from 2017/05/15 until 2018/06/01 the plaintiff was
employed as a senior auditor until the company was liquidated and he lost his
position. During 2018/06/01 he was appointed an assistance manager at
Deloitte for a year until 2019 /06/30. During 2019/07/01 to 2020/06/09 he was
unemployed with no earnings. During 2021/04/14 he was employed as a
Financial Manager at Vryburg Private Hospital until 2023/10/31 when he
resigned due to complaints about his performance as per e mail from Mr
Vengasai and also, he wanted to move to join his family in Johannesburg.
During 2021/04/14 until 2022/02/28 his earnings was 387 809 per annum and
between 2022/03/01 until 2023/10/31 his earning was R 372 570 per annum.
[26] The IP considered that he was employed in 2022/11/01as Financial Accountant
at Adamjee Group until he was dismissed in 2024/03/15 due to under
performance. He was not employed from 2024/03/16 until end February 2025.
Therefore, he was employed at ZYC Commodity Trading as a Management
Accountant from 2025/03/01 earning the gross income of R 234 346.00. The
ZYC is the company belonging to his father and already made a mistake which
costed the company over a million.
[27] The plaintiff appointed Munro Actuaries to calculate his past and future loss of
income based on the postulations made by the IP. The contingencies of 5 %
past loss, 15 % pre-morbid and 25 % post morbid was applied.
Pre-accident post-accident Loss
Past income
5 102 300
2 979 000
I
Past contingencies 5%
Net past income
4 821 674
2 979 000
R 1 842 674
Future income
21 277 700
6 612 300
Future Contingencies
16% premorbid & 2 6%
postmorbid
17 873 278
4 893 102
12 980 166
Total loss of earning
14 822 840
Impact of cap (6423440)
Net Loss 8 399 400
PLAINTIFF’S SUBMISSIONS
[28] The plaintiff’s counsel submitted that the plaintiff’s injuries sustained in the
accident in question are significant as outlined in the medical experts’ reports.
The counsel referred the court to all experts’ reports and further submitted that
the plaintiff had a previous accident with minor injury of the abdomen and that
the injury had no significant impact to the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s counsel further
indicated that conspicuously, the plaintiff should be compensated for past
medical expenses, loss of earnings and general damages.
[29] The counsel argued that the amount of R 37 884.52 should be granted for pass
medical expenses as the proofs or medical vouchers were in the case line. The
counsel further referred the court to the actuarial report and submitted that the
amount of R 8 399 400 after the application of contingency deduction and RAF
cap should be ordered as a fair and reasonable amount compensate the plaintiff
for his loss of earning capacity.
[30] The counsel further submitted that the plaintiff should be compensated the
amount of R 1 250 000.00 for general damages. The court was referred to
various case law s to substantiate that the abovementioned amount is
reasonable to compensation the plaintiff for general damages. I will only refer
to the few among the case laws I was referred to by the plaintiff’s counsel.
[31] The court was referred to the case of Mofokeng v Road Accident Fund, 2014
JDR (GJ) per Opperman AJ (Judgment handed down on 1 July 2014), where a
23 years old female had an accident and sustained a soft tissue injury of the
neck,a soft tissue injury of the lower back and a head injur y. The brain injury
was referred to as a diffuse rotation al shear injury, invisible to MRI scans,
characterised by an effective disconnection between the frontal lobes and the
rest of the brain to lesser or greater degree. The plaintiff was unconscious for
about an hour. The plaintiff was fitted with a cervical collar . The plaintiff was
discharged the same day. The plaintiff became forgetful and personality
changes occurred. The lumber spine range of movement was restricted. The
court awarded her R 700 000.00 for general damages in 2014 and the present
value in 2026 is R 1 229 283.00
[32] The court was further referred to the case of Van der Merwe , CM v RAF ,
Gauteng High Court, cn 88926/2015; unreported per R.O Fourie AJ, where the
plaintiff suffered a minor/mild concussive head injury and brain damages, facial
injury, thoracic spine, T 10 compression fracture , lung contusion with rib
fractures and reflux associated to chest injury , fracture of the left hand , lower
back injury, right knee plateau fracture , injury to the right foot and ankle. The
plaintiff was awarded R 1 400 000.00 in 2020 that has a 2026 value of R
1 867 348.00.
COURT’S DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
Loss of Earnings
[33] This leads me to the issues of the past and future loss of earning capacity and
contingencies to be applied. In this regard I am also guided by Mngomezulu v
RAF13, Kgomo J argued that:
"[84] For the Plaintiff to succeed in a claim for loss of earnings, he is required to provide
a factual basis for an actuarial calculation. This is a process designed to assess
actuarial / mathematical c a lculations on the basis of the evidence as well as
over-all assumptions vesting or depending on such evidence. This approach is
known as the actuarial approach.
[85] The actuarial approach seeks to determine the loss of earnings as realistically
as possible to what may be the Plaintiff's actual losses. The approach comprises
of (a) providing a factual basis upon which the loss of earning is to be calculated
and only then (b) by applying appropriate contingency deductions."
13 (Case No. 04643/2010) [2011] ZAGPJHC 107 (8 September2011)
[34] When deciding issues of past and future loss of earnings, this court has
considered a decision in Southern Insurance Association Ltd v Bailey
NO14 Nicholas JA stated as follows:
“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" ……… 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" expectation of life; and that he may experience periods o f
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.”
[35] The neurosurgeon, Dr D Deklerk, was influenced by the reported challenges
and that the plaintiff repeated his charted accountant board exam to opine the
type of head injury as moderate diffuse traumatic brain injury but he did not
consider that the plaintiff had previous scholastic challenges as he failed or
repeated his honours degree tw ice before the accident , as reported by the
plaintiff to Dr Mazabow15.
[36] The IP, Dr W Pretorius also mentioned all injuries and sequelae as reported by
different experts in order to postulate the plaintiff loss of earnings. The IP opined
that the plaintiff failed the charted accountants’ board exam due to the injuries
14 1984 (1) SA 98, par 116-117
15 Caseline 18.08-40-41
sustained in the accident in question. The worst part is that the IP indicated that
as a result of the accident in question the plaintiff had to repeat charted
accountant board exams several times and opined that pre-accident the plaintiff
would have likely became a charted accountant in 2018 but as a result of the
accident in question, he only passed his accountant board exam in 2022. The
court finds that the IP basis for his opinion was done without careful
investigation of the plaintiff’s previous scholastic challenges. The IP postulation
with regard to scholastic performance w ithout the report of the educational
psychologist was unsubstantiated and overreaching and the court vehemently
reject it.
[37] No educational psychologist was appointed to assess the plaintiff ’s scholastic
challenges; therefore, it was an overreaching for the industrial psychologist to
opine that the injuries sustained in the accident , caused the plaintiff’s delay to
pass his accountants’ board exam . The court finds that the delay was not
entirely caused by the accident in question. The plaintiff presented with
pre-existing scholastic challenges, as evidenced by his having repeated his
Honours degree twice prior to the accident in question. This history indicates
an established pattern of academic difficulty independent of the collisi on. The
plaintiff passed his honours degree on the third attempt in 2015 after accident.
[38] The court also noted that the CT brain scan with the following results “Right
asymmetric frontoparietal hypodensity suggestive of non haemorrhagic contusion” 16.
Dr Asad Mushtaq on the statutory medical report form, indicated that the plaintiff
16 Caseline 18.08-100
had intercranial bleed (active haemorrhage), No CT scan was attached to proof
this assertion. The neurosurgeon, and neurologist mentioned that the CT scan
was normal. The court was not provided with a CT scan to confirm active
haemorrhage.
[39] The court notes from the clinical records that, under the plaintiff’s medical
history, he was admitted approximately two years prior to the accident for
gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. This type of condition is, in my view, of a serious
nature, and it is r egrettable that none of the experts appear to have assessed
or addressed its relevance in their reports 17. The court also notes that
gastrointestinal distension was treated during the plaintiff’s 2015 accident. This
makes it conspicuous that the abdominal injury sustained in 2014 was of a
severe nature, given that its sequelae appear to have persisted and requi red
further medical intervention the following year18.
[40] The plaintiff did not place before the court the hospital records relating to the
2014 accident, which occurred a year prior to the accident in question. In the
absence of these records, the court is unable to assess the nature, extent, or
sequelae of the earlier injuries. The court finds that the hospital records from
the previous accident would have been of considerable assistance in
determining whether the injuries sustained at that time had any detrimental
effect on the plaintiff’s health. Such rec ords are also necessary to assess
whether those earlier injuries were serious in nature and whether they
17 Caseline 18.06-83
18 Caseline 18.06-128
contribute in any way to the plaintiff’s current medical presentation.
[41] The court’s view is that the injuries sustained in the 2014 accident had a
detrimental impact on the plaintiff’s health, and that by the time of the accident
in question his health was already compromised. The plaintiff reported that,
following the 2014 ac cident, he sustained only minor abdominal injuries and
was not admitted. However, in some expert reports he is recorded as having
stated that he was hospitalised for a day or two. Despite these inconsistencies,
none of the experts requested or obtaine d the hospital records to verify the
plaintiff’s account. This omission leaves the court without reliable evidence
regarding the nature and severity of the 2014 injuries.
[42] The Neuropsychologist, Dr Malzabow, in his report dated 9 February 2018,
recorded that the plaintiff had failed his Honours degree twice. However, he did
not investigate or enquire into the possible causes of the plaintiff’s scholastic
difficulties in 2013 and 2014. Instead, he attributed the plaintiff’s neurocognitive
sequelae solely to the accident in question. This omission is material, as it
overlooks pre -existing academic challenges that may bear directly on the
plaintiff’s current presentation.
[43] I have considered all the evidence before me and conclude that the plaintiff
sustained a mild to moderate traumatic brain injury with concussion. I further
find that the unassessed injuries arising from the 2014 accident significantly
contributed to the sequelae now reported by the plaintiff. The failure to
properly investigate and assess those earlier injuries has left the court without
a complete picture of the plaintiff’s pre -existing vulnerabilities, which in turn
bears directly on the evaluation of the injuries attributed to the accident in
question.
[44] The above considerations constitute the court’s reasons for departing from the
experts’ conclusions and their proposed contingencies when assessing the
plaintiff’s reasonable loss of earning capacity. Having regard to the plaintiff’s
pre-existing vulnerabi lities and the contributory impact of the unassessed
injuries from the earlier accident, the court finds that the plaintiff should be
compensated for the diminution of his earning capacity by applying a spread of
15%, on the basis that his pre - and po st-morbid earning potential is to be
regarded as equal.
Pre-Accident Post-Accident Loss
Postulated Past
and future
Income
R 26 330 000
R 26 330 000
SPREAD OF
10%
15% 30%
R 22 380 500 R 18 431 000
TOTAL R 3 949 500.00
[45] In the circumstances, the court finds that the appropriate amount to be awarded
to the plaintiff in respect of his loss of earning capacity is the sum of
R3 949 500.00 (Three Million, Nine Hundred and Forty -Nine Thousand, Five
Hundred Rand).
[46] The court finds that the plaintiff should be compensated in the amount of
R37 884.52 (Thirty-Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Eighty-Four Rand and
Fifty-Two Cents), as supported by the invoices provided. 19.
General Damages
[47] The defendant has sent a correspondence letter on 22 October 2025,
acknowledged that the plaintiff sustained a mild head injury and accepted that
the plaintiff qualifies for the compensation for general damages. This court
should proceed to deal with the issues of general damages.
[48] Moseneke DCJ in Van der Merwe v Road Accident Fund and Another20
stated that,
“non-patrimonial damages, which also bear the name of general damages, are utilized
to redress the deterioration of a highly personal legal interests that attach to the body
and personality of the claimant. However, ordinarily the breach of a personal legal
interest does not reduce the individual’s estate and does not have a readily
determinable or direct monetary value. Therefore, general damages are, so to speak,
illiquid and are not instantly sounding in money. They are not susceptible to exact or
immediate calculation in monetary terms. In other words, there is no real relationship
between the money and the loss . In bodily injury claims, well -established variants of
general damages include “pain and suffering”, “disfigurement”, and “loss of amenities
of life.”
19 Caseline 18.05
20 (CCT48/05) [2006] ZACC 4
[49] Sandler v Wholesale Coal Supplies Ltd21 where the court held that;
“The amount to be awarded as compensation can only be determined by the broadest
General considerations and the figure arrived at must necessarily be uncertain,
depending upon the judge’s view of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case”.
[50] The plaintiff’s counsel referred the court to various authorities in which the
injuries were comparable to those sustained by the plaintiff. Having carefully
considered the nature of the plaintiff’s injuries and their sequelae, I am satisfied
that an award of R800 000.00 (Eight Hundred Thousand Rand) constitutes a
fair and reasonable amount in respect of general damages.
[51] I have considered the opinion of the neuropsychologist who recommended that
a trust should be opened on behalf of the plaintiff.
COSTS
[52] The court shall not deviate from the general rule that the cost shall follow the
successful party.
ORDERS
[53] In the circumstances, I make the following order;
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of R4 787 384.52 (Four
21 1941 AD 194 at 199
Million, Seven Hundred and Eighty -Seven Thousand, Three Hundred and
Eighty-Four Rand and Fifty-Two Cents) in respect of general damages, loss
of earning capacity, and past medical and hospital expenses, which amount
is made up as follows:
(i) R 37 884.52, for past medical and hospital expenses.
(ii) R 800 000.00, for general damages.
(iii) R 3 949 500.00, for loss of earning capacity.
2. The Amount in paragraph 1 above shall be paid into following Bank
Accounts;
NAME OF BANK: STANDARD BANK
ACCOUNT HOLDER: SALOMe LE ROUX TRUST ACCOUNT
TYPE OF ACCOUNT: TRUST CHEQUE ACCOUNT
ACCOUNT NO: 0[...]
BRANCH CODE: 01-00-45-00
REF NO: V0615
3. The defendant shall be liable to pay interest on the aforesaid amounts
tempore morae at the rate of 10.25% per annum from 14 days after the
date of this order to date of the payment.
4. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff ‘s taxed or agreed party and party costs
until the date of this order including counsel’s fee on scale C, Including;
4.1 The costs consequently in the preparation of and obtaining the medico
legal and actuary reports that were served on or provided to the defendant.
4.2 The reasonable taxable preparation, qualifying and reservation fees, if any
of the plaintiff’s experts for trial of whom notice was given to the defendant.
4.3 The reasonable taxable costs of necessary consultations with the said
experts and the reasonable taxable traveling, subsistence and
accommodation costs of the plaintiff for attending the medico legal
examination, subject to the discretion of the taxing master.
4.4 The reasonable taxable costs of traveling, subsistence, accommodation
costs of the plaintiff for attending court.
4.5 The costs for referring the matter to HPCSA, for determination of the
seriousness of the plaintiff’s injuries in terms of regulation 3(3) of the Act.
4.6 Cost for drafting the application in terms of Rule 38 (2).
4.7 The fees and costs of the curatrix ad litem incurred in compliance with her
duties in general and as laid down in the order appointing her as such to
include her fee for preparing her report to court and her day fee for 30 March
2026 such costs to be taxable on high court scale B.
4.8 The defendant shall be liable to pay interest on the amount of the Plaintiff’s
costs of suit, as taxed or agreed, at 10.25 % per annum from 14 (fourteen
days) of the allocaturs of the taxing master or the date of the agreement,
whichever applies, to date of payment.
5. Tammy-Jean van Jaarsveld of Tammy van Jaarsveld attorneys who
consented thereto in terms of Annexure “X” is hereto appointed as
trustee to a trust to be established for the benefit of MOHAMMED AMEEN
VALLEE with the powers and duties as set out in the draft trust deed
attached hereto as Annexure “XX”.
6. The defendant shall upon demand pay all costs, disbursements of the
trustee incurred in respect of the trust and in the protection of the
award of the plaintiff. If the defendant neglects to pay such costs, fees
and disbursements upon demand, interest shall accrue on the defendant’s
indebtedness in this regard to be calculated a tempore mora to date of
final payment at the statutory mora rate of interest applicable from time to
time.
E MASHAMBA
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT,
PRETORIA; GAUTENG DIVISION
APPEARANCES
FOR THE PLAINTIFF : ADV LUDVICH VISSER
INSTRUCTED BY : SALOME LE ROUX ATTORNEYS
FOR THE DEFENDANT : NO APPEARANCE
DATE OF HEARING : 30TH MARCH 2026
DATE OF JUDGEMENT : 22ND MAY 2026