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
FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Not reportable
Case no: 3595/2023
In the matter between
E[…] H[…] B[…] D[...] J[...] PLAINTIFF
And
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND DEFENDANT
Neutral citation: EHB D[...] J[...] v Road Accident Fund (3595/2023) [2026] ZAFSHC
404 (25 August 2026)
Coram: NAIDOO J
Heard: 18 A ugust 2026
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties’ representatives by email and released to SAFLII. The date and time for hand-
down is deemed to be 11h00 on 25 August 2026.
Summary: Personal injury claim – only outstanding issues for adjudication –
general damages and past medical expenses – past medical expenses separated
and postponed – only general damages adjudicated.
ORDER
2
1 The plaintiff’s application in terms of Uniform Rule 38(2) is granted, to enable the
plaintiff to proceed to adduce evidence by way of affidavit in respect of the experts listed
in paragraphs 1.1 to 1.7 of the notice of motion.
2 The plaintiff’s claim for past medical and hospital -related expenses is separated
in terms of Uniform Rule 33(4) and is postponed sine die.
3 The defendant shall make payment in the sum of R1 100 000 (One Million One
Hundred Thousand Rand) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ capital amount ’) to the
Plaintiff’s attorneys, Edeling van Niekerk Inc, in respect of the Plaintiff’s claim for
General Damages, which amount shall be payable by direct transfer into the Plaintiff’s
Attorneys trust account, details of which are as follows:
Account Name : Edeling Van Niekerk Inc
Bank : Nedbank
Branch : Business Westrand
Account number : 1[…]
Branch code : 128605
Ref : MAT3174
4 The defendant shall pay interest a tempore morae on the capital amount
aforesaid at a rate of 10.25% per annum from 180 (One Hundred and Eighty) days after
date of this order to date of final payment.
5 The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff’s p arty and p arty costs as taxed or
agreed inclusive of Counsel’s fees on Scale ‘B’, such costs to include, at the discretion
of the Taxing Master, the costs, attendant upon the employment by the plaintiff of the
following expert witnesses:
5.1. Dr Hoffmann - Plastic and Reconstruction Surgeon
(Report and RAF4)
5.2. Dr S Bugwandin - Orthopaedic Surgeon
5.3. Dr D Mutyaba - Neurosurgeon (Report & RAF4)
5.4. Dr N Rughoo - Clinical Psychologist
5.5. Nina Du Plessis - Educational Psychologist
5.6. Mari Lize Nel - Industrial Psychologist
5.7. Liezel Gildenhuys - Occupational Therapist
JUDGMENT
3
Naidoo J
[1] This is a claim for damages in respect of personal injury arising from a motor
vehicle accident that occurred on 14 April 2022 on the road between Ficksburg and
Rosendal in the Free State P rovince. The plaintiff, E […] H[…] B[…] D[…] J[…] , was a
17-year-old matric pupil at the time and was seated at the back of a light delivery
vehicle, known as a ‘bakkie’ in South Africa, when the accident occurred. The driver
swerved to avoid a pothole in the road, as a result of which the plaintiff was thrown from
the bakkie and suffered serious injuries . The records and medico-legal reports indicate
that the plaintiff suffered moderate traumatic brain injury as well as facial, scalp and
other bodily injuries, the sequelae of which were serious and impacted negatively on the
plaintiff.
[2] The defendant, the Road Accident Fund (RAF) accepted and conceded 100%
liability for the plaintiff’s proven or agreed damages arising from the accident. The
issues of loss of income and future medical and hospital expenses were also settled
between the parties, which agreement was made an order of court on 5 May 2026. The
issues for this court t o adjudicate were therefore, general damages and past medical
and hospital expenses . W hen the trial commenced, the court was informed that the
plaintiff did not intend to proceed with the issue of past medical expenses at this stage
and applied for a separation of that head of damages and postponement of same, sine
die. The defendant did not oppose the application for separation, which was granted,
and the matter proceeded only in respect of general damages.
[3] The plaintiff brought a further application, in terms of r ule 38( 2), in which he
sought the admission of the medic-legal reports filed by the experts who had examined
him. The defendant also had no objection to this application. Af ter the court considered
that most of the matter had become settled by the time the trial had commenced, and
that most of the matter had become settled by the time the trial had commenced, and
that the only issue for adjudication was that of general damages, the application was
granted. All the plaintiff’s expert reports were admitted into evidence.
[4] The plaintiff called the evidence of his mother, M […] L[…] D[…] J[…] (Mrs D[…]
J[…] ) and he also testified. Mrs D[...] J[...] confirmed that the plaintiff was a matric pupil
at the time of the accident and that he resided with her in the family home. She
4
accordingly had daily contact with him. She further testified that prior to the accident he
had a passion for aviation, which he acquired from his father , who was an avid aviation
enthusiast, and who took the plaintiff with him to various aviation events from the time
the plaintiff was a young child. The plaintiff ’s passion for aviation was such that , from a
very young age, he was intent on becoming a pilot. Before the accident, he was,
according to her, a very determined young man who knew what he wanted for his
future. He was dyslexic and therefore relied on his memory a great deal. He would
memorise his school subjects in order to perform well at schoo l. His memory was
therefore very good. He was a mild -tempered and patient child and was a keen chess
player. He sometimes did some boxing, and although he played rugby at a stage, he
was not very interested in sports.
[5] Mrs D[...] J[...] testified that she saw the plaintiff at the scene of the accident
about 30 minutes after the accident ; he was bleeding from his eye s, cheeks, nose,
hands and knees. He was taken to the Ficksburg H ospital and thereafter transferred to
the Netcare Alberton Hospital, where he spent 22 days in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU)
before being transferred to a general ward. He spent a total of 32 days in hospital .
Whilst he was in the ICU, he was in an ind uced coma and was unconscious for
approximately 21 days. After he regained consciousness, he was unable to do anything
for himself and had to be washed, cleaned and fed. He had to wear diapers for a while.
When the plaintiff returned home, she noticed that his short -term memory had been
affected. He forgot things easily. He had become impatient, irritable and lost his temper
easily. He also suffered from headaches and dizziness, and at times he would be
frustrated and depressed. These are behaviours she observed after the accident; he did
not behave in this way before the accident.
not behave in this way before the accident.
[6] The plaintiff returned to school towards the end of July 2022, being the third
school term of the year. He had to catch up with work he had missed in the second
term. He used to be frustrated because he would forget what he had learned. He was
unable to write normally, and the Department of E ducation allowed him to be assisted
by a scribe to write his examinations. Due to becoming very tired, he was allowed to
rest for 15 minutes at hourly intervals and was given extra time to finish the
examination. He passed matric at the end of that year. Mrs D[...] J[...] testified that he
manages the challenges with his memory by keeping notes in a notepad of the things
5
he is required to do, so he does not forget.
[7] The plaintiff has also withdrawn from social life and does not go out or
participate in social activities such as attending church or functions , citing the demands
of his job as the reason. His social interactions with family and some friends are normal.
She testified that he was deeply disappointed that he was unable to fulfil his ambition of
becoming a pilot. The neurologist advised against it due to the risk of his developing
epilepsy in the future. A further problem that the plaintiff has had since the accident was
constant pain in his lower back. She feels that a person of his age should not have such
problems.
[8] The plaintiff testified that he has very little recollection of the accident and
sketchy awareness of his stay in hospital. He confirmed that when he was transferred to
a general ward from the ICU, he was not able to perform most of his personal care
functions himself. He had to be cleaned and washed, was obliged to use a bedpan and
also had to wear diapers for a while in hospital. He was able to sit up and feed himself .
The plaintiff also confirmed his mother’s testimony about his impaired short -term
memory and that he uses a notepad and a whiteboard to record his tasks for the day
(especially at work) , which he ticks off as the tasks are completed. With regard to his
schooling, he confirmed that he returned to school in the third term (of 2022) . He had to
catch up with the work he missed in the second term and had to have a scribe to assist
him with writing the examinations, as his wrist injury prevented him from writing. He also
suffered from extreme fatigue, and confirmed that he was given rest periods during the
course of writing examinati on papers and extra time to complete the examinations. He
also repeated that his main ambition was to become a pilot, specifically a helicopter
pilot. He was very disappointed to learn that he could not be a pilot due to his head
injury
injury
[9] With regard to work, the plaintiff testified that he is currently employed as an
avionics technician, which requires him to service and take care of the electronic
systems of aircraft. He has been an apprentice and is currently at the stage where he is
about to qualify. He gave no further details of his employment. From a perusal of the
expert reports which were admitted in terms of r ule 38(2), I gleaned that he is employed
by a company called Air Tec Global which is based in the Free State town of
6
Bethlehem. The plaintiff confirmed that the work he performs is fine and sensitive, which
I interpret to mean that the job requires a high degree of skill. The plaintiff indicated that
he does experience lower back pain in the course of his work, depending on his position
he is working in, and, at times, dizziness if he stands up too quickly. His wrist becomes
painful if he uses the wrist in the course of his work. He also experiences back pain if he
picks up heavy objects . He occasionally also suffers from headaches and pain in his
jaw, which makes eating difficult.
[10] With regard to his social life, the pl aintiff said that he does not socialise with
friends because of the demands of his work. He explained that he works long hours and
he is sometimes required, at short notice, to travel to other airports in Africa to service
or maintain aircraft there. The Occupational Therapist, Ms Liezel Geldenhuys ,
expanded on this in her report, which I will mention later. It appears from his evidence
that the main bar to his sociali sing or even having a girlfriend is the demands of his job.
That was, in sum, the evidence for the plaintiff . RAF led no evidence, and confirmed
that, in essence, the evidence led by the plaintiff was not in dispute. With regard to the
amount of the award to be made, Ms L ephoto advised that while she confirms
discussions between her and Mr Van Dyk for the plaintiff, she makes no submissions in
that regard and leaves the amount of the award in the court’s hands . She advised the
court that RAF had previously made an offer, but it seems that it was based on a mild
brain injury , and her view was that such an off er was low, considering the plaintiff’s
injuries. She did not disclose the amount of the offer.
[11] That the plaintiff suffered serious injuries is not in dispute. For completeness , I
repeat the injuries listed in the report of Dr S Bugwandin, the orthopaedic surgeon. He
repeat the injuries listed in the report of Dr S Bugwandin, the orthopaedic surgeon. He
stated that the injuries to the plaintiff’s head were ‘swollen lips, bilateral raccoon eyes,
an open wound on the left side of the head, the open wound left occipital, subarachnoid
haemorrhage, traumatic brain injury, temporomandibular joint injury and skull fractures’.
In the lumbar spine area, he noted ‘ lower back tenderness, L5/S1 intervertebral disc
injury’. With regard to the upper limb, he noted ‘wrist injury involving the triangular
fibrocartilage’. He recorded as multiple soft tissue injuries ‘abrasions on upper and lower
extremities and back’.
[12] These notes and observations about the injuries appear to be consistent with
7
the evidence for the plaintiff regarding his injuries and the sequelae thereof. The court
was, in addition, able to observe the scar above his left eye, which was estimated to be
about 4 or 5 centimetres in length. This is the wound that required skin grafts. The scar
is visible and is a permanent disfigurement. The injury to the back of his head has
resulted in an unsightly bald patch at the back of his head, just to the left of the crown.
This too constitutes permanent disfigurement . The plaintiff indicated that there is a scar
on his throat from where a tracheotomy was done on him in the ICU, as well as on his
side where the skin was taken for the skin graft to his forehead, both of which the court
was u nable to observe. It is accepted that the disfigurement suffered by the pl aintiff
would have affected hi m emotionally and would have impacted his self -confidence.
Similarly, the injury to his jaw , which causes difficulty in eating, is a condition he will
have to live with, albeit that it occurs occasionally.
[13] It is trite that the assessment of and an award in respect of general damages
calls for the exercise of judicial discretion. Based on the documentary and viva voce
evidence before it, the court must strive to make an award that is fair to both sides and
addresses the sequelae of the injuries in the specific case before it
. This was succinctly
stated in Mahlangu v Road Accident Fund (Mahlangu),1 where the court said:
'1. The award for general damages remains a compensation, it ameliorates the damage (pain
and suffering) resulting from injuries sustained in an accident. It is not intended to be full
compensation, if that is possible, and it is not intended to wipe out, if that is possible, the
damage.
2. The statutory compensation scheme is in essence compensation by the public at large
through the state therefore it cannot have a punitive element in it.
3. The statutory compensation scheme is meant to benefit a broad spectrum of the public.
3. The statutory compensation scheme is meant to benefit a broad spectrum of the public.
Money in a country like South Africa remains a scarce resource with huge demands on the
fiscus. Compensation awards must be considered carefully in a responsible manner.'
[14] While comparisons with similar cases are useful as a guide, that is the only
purpose they serve, as no two cases are alike. One can perhaps refer to cases which
are as closely similar to the current case as possible. In this regard, it is useful to refer
to cases where the plaintiff suffered a head injury and multiple other injuries, as did the
plaintiff in this matter. There are two matters which bear mention. The first is April obo a
1 Mahlangu v RAF (2013/46374) [2015] ZAGPJHC 342 (9 June 2015) (Mahlangu) para 23.
8
Minor v Road Accident Fund, 2 where the court awarded R500 000 for general damages
in 2021 to the plaintiff who suffered the following injuries: (a) a head injury and facial
abrasions; (b) loss of consciousness; (c) neck pain; (d)
right distal radius and ulna fracture; (e) an injury to the right ulna nerve; (f)
left clavicle fracture; and (g) a pelvis fracture and multiple abrasions.
[15] The second matter is that of Tshongolo v Road Accident F und (Tshongolo),
3
where the court awarded R500 000 to a teenager who suffered a very mild brain injury ,
was not rendered unconscious after the accident, and also sustained abrasions to her
face and a fracture of her right clavicle. She was h ospitalised for approximately three
days and attended follow up examinations which included a procedure to drain excess
fluids from a haematoma of her head. She experienced occipital headaches almost on a
daily basis as well as right shoulder pains induced by lifting heavy objects. She suffered
lower back pain induced by inclement weather or prolonged sitting and a soft tissue
injury to her thoracolumbar spine. She experienced neurocognitive deficits in respect of
concentration, attention and working memory.
[16] The Consumer Price Index for July 2026 was published on 19 August 2026, and
the headline index for July 2026 is 107.7. Based on that figure, t he award made on 29
September 2021 in the matter of April would translate today to R633 529.41, and in
Tshongolo made on 2 November 2021, would translate today t o R 629 088.79. The
plaintiff referred me to the case of R .S v Road Accident Fund (R.S),
4 emanating from
this Division where judgment was handed down on 20 February 2025. The plaintiff in
that matter suffered severe injuries in a motor vehicle accident t hat occurred when she
was 12 years old. She sustained injuries to her head, left leg , left arm, her kidney and
her hip. She was admitted to the ICU and spent two months there and a further four
her hip. She was admitted to the ICU and spent two months there and a further four
months in the general ward. Thereafter, she was admitted to another hospital and spent
a further eight months in hospital. When she was transferred to the general ward at the
first hospital, she was unable to walk or speak and spent approximately one year in a
wheelchair. Her injuries resulted in severe bodily and facial scars. Her cognitive
functioning was impaired, causing her to fail her grades at school repeatedly. She
eventually left school after failing Grade 10 twice. There were other serious and
2 April obo a Minor v Road Accident Fund (30703/18) [2021] ZAGPJHC 478 (29 September 2021)
3 Tshongolo v Road Accident Fund (19958/14) [2021] ZAGPJHC 29 (2 November 2021).
4 R.S v Road Accident Fund (5233/2023) [2025] ZAFSHC 68 (20 February 2025).
9
debilitating sequelae which she had to endure. The court awarded her general damages
of R1 800 000.
[17] The matter of MS Pitso obo M Pitso v Road Accident Fund (Pitso)5 came before
me in July 2026 for trial i n respect of a claim for loss of earnings arising from a motor
vehicle accident on 27 October 2014, in which the plaintiff sustained severe to moderate
brain injury after being knocked down by a motor vehicle, while she was a pedestrian.
The plaintiff was six years old at the time . The traumatic brain injury she sustained
resulted in the plaintiff suffering moderate residual long -term neurocognitive deficits in
the form of memory and concentration impairments, with learning difficulties . The
neurosurgeon opined that such traumatic injury to the immature brain leads to
progressive neurodegeneration, hyperactivity and sustained cognitive impairments . The
plaintiff also suffers from frequent headaches , and her cognitive functioning was
severely impaired.
[18] The clinical psychologist performed extensive tests to assess her cognitive and
differential aptitudes, and found that the plaintiff’s functioning in many areas is
significantly below average. The result is that post -accident, she experiences significant
academic challenges. This was evident when she failed and repeated Grade1, Grade 3,
and Grade 8. Although she is currently in Grade 10, her academic results up to July
2026 indicated a high probability that she may fail Grade 10. The experts opine that she
is unlikely to obtain a tertiary qualification, and that if she is able to work, it will be in the
unskilled sector. T he significance of this case to the present matter is that prior to the
matter coming before me, the issue of general damages was settled when RAF agreed
to pay an amount of R1 250 000 in respect thereof. This and other aspects that were
settled were made an order of court on 24 July 2026, while the trial in respect of loss of
earnings was postponed for later adjudication
earnings was postponed for later adjudication
[19] I have taken cognisance of these and other cases I came across in the
preparation of this judgment. As I indicated, there is no dispute regarding the plaintiff’s
injuries, and that he has endured pain and suffering, permanent scarring and
disfigurement, and that his short -term memory has been affected, which he has had to
5 MS Pitso obo M Pitso v Road Accident Fund (2026-077029). This matter was postponed to 21 August 2026.
Currently, judgment is reserved.
10
accommodate. I also take account of the fact that he spent approximately 21 days in the
ICU and a total period of 32 days in hospital , was in an induced coma in the ICU and
was obliged to wear diapers for a while. I accept that he suffered deep disappointment
because he was told that he could not become a pilot. Althou gh this was highlighted
during the plaintiff’s and his mother’s evidence, I do not propose to dwell on that, firstly
because an award has already been made in respect of the loss of earnings, and
secondly, while not discounting the emotional and ps ychological harm he may have
suffered as a result , I note that he is currently gainfully and permanently employed as
an avionics technician in Bethlehem. In this regard, the plaintiff has shown himself to be
remarkably resilient and determined to pursue a career in the aviation space. He missed
almost the entire second term in his matric year, returned full- time to school in the third
term and was able to successfully pass matric , in spite of the challenges he faced as a
result of his injuries. This is not something easily achieved. It also speaks of an above-
average intellectual capacity.
[20] A high degree of skill and concentration is required to be an avionics technician.
The plaintiff appears to cope remarkably well, which indicates that his cognitive function
has not been impaired, save for the deficit in his short -term memory. He has
accommodated this challenge by making u se of various reminder methods , such as a
notepad, a whiteboard, sticky notes and the like. The court is cognisant that his having
to do this is an inconvenience and a challenge that is probably permanent . I have, in
addition, noted from the reports of the experts that he lives on his own in Bethlehem,
has a driver’s licence and drives his own bakkie. He takes care of most of his domestic
chores on his own. Neither the plaintiff nor his mother made mention of this when they
chores on his own. Neither the plaintiff nor his mother made mention of this when they
testified. I accept that his brain injury was classified as moderate, which is m ore serious
than the mild injury in April and Tshongolo, but considerably less severe than the
injuries i n RS and Pitso. In addition, t he requirements of his work and the plaintiff’s
ability to successfully execute his assigned work also indicate an above average ability.
[21] I return to the report of the Occupational Therapist, Ms Liezel Gildenhuys , who
set out in her report a short description of the plaintiff’s workplace. I cite an extract from
her exposition:
‘
He noted that he has his own toolbox with specialised tools as well . When working at the
11
workshop, he stands and works on the various parts at a workbench. When working on the
planes themselves , he has to work everywhere, pending on the task at hand. He is also
required to do a test flight at least once a month, or perform maintenance at other airports in
Africa. He will then be flown there by the company. When doing test flights, it mostly includes
observation of the controls and electronics while the pilot is flying ’ She then went on to
describe the tools that the plaintiff uses on a daily basis thus : ‘Spanners, screwdrivers,
multi metre, pliers, soldering iron, etc. may also be required to handle parts which he estimates
to be weighing around 15-20 kg’
Ms Gildenhuys concluded that segment of her report with a short summary of the
plaintiff’s tasks at work:
‘Servicing airplane electronics
Maintain airplane electronics
Repair airplane electronics
Primarily smaller airplanes (20 seaters)
Fleet of 48 airplanes that they have to service
There are many electronics engineers that are placed out in the field but in Bethlehem they are
only three.’
In my view, this fortifies the point I made about a high degree of skill and concentration
being required for one to be an avionics technician, which the plaintiff clearly
possesses, and also the point that his cognitive function was not impaired.
[22] Some of t he sequelae of the plaintiff’s injuries will more than likely be with him
for the rest of his life, namely the scarring I mentioned, the deficits in his short -term
memory, the back pain, headaches and jaw pain he occasi onally experiences.
However, having regard to other similar cases, my view is that his injuries did affect his
functioning for a while, but his functioning is still largely intact. That he has reduced
enjoyment of some activities of his life is not disputed. The plaintiff’s mother created the
impression that he does not go out, socialise, or participate in social activities as a result
impression that he does not go out, socialise, or participate in social activities as a result
of his injuries, and especially the scarring. She conceded that he functions normally
when socialising with his family and friends. Neither she nor the plaintiff disclosed that
he is no longer living in the same house as his parents and has not done so,
presumably, since 2003, when he commenced his apprenticeship at Air Tec Global. His
mother’s testimony about the reasons for the plaintiff not socialising with friends or
attending social functions must be viewed against this background and with some
circumspection. The court pursued this with the plaintiff , and he indicated that the
12
reason he does not go out or even have a girlfriend is due to the demands of his job. He
works long hours and is often required, at very short notice, to fly to other parts of Africa
for maintenance, servicing or repairs of aircraft. This means he has to be available to
leave as required, and this is what prevents him from going out. Apart from expressing
frustration over not being able to become a pilot and having to constantly write notes to
remember his tasks, the plaintiff gave no indication that any of the sequelae of his
injuries had an impact on hi m to such an extent that he has withdrawn fr om social life.
He, in f act, appeared to adopt the sensible attitude that he will continue his life and
further his career while accommodating the challenges he has.
[23] I take cognisance of the remarks of the court in Mahlangu, which I mentioned
earlier, and am in agreement therewith.
6 The compensation for general damages is
meant to be a solatium for the damages suffered and not a windfall which he may not
be entitled to. It is not meant to be full compensation or remove the damage totally . The
compensation award must be carefully considered and made responsibly, taking into
account the relevant factors of the case and the impact on the fiscus, as such awards
implicate state resources. I am of the view that the amount of R1 500 000 argued for is
on the high side. I have considered the current values of awards made in April,
Tshongolo, RS and particularly the amount offered in Pitso, as well as the injuries
sustained by the plaintiffs in those matters. It must be borne in mind that the plaintiff in
Pitso will not be able to fulfil her career ambitions or support herself to the extent she
would have, had the accident not occurred. Yet the award made in Pitso is considerably
lower than the amount claimed by the plaintiff in this matter. He is independent , self-
supporting and the sequelae of his injuries are not as severe as in Pitso. I am, therefore,
supporting and the sequelae of his injuries are not as severe as in Pitso. I am, therefore,
more inclined towards granting a lower amount than that argued for in this matter.
[24] In the circumstances, I make the following orders:
1 The plaintiff’s application in terms of Uniform Rule 38(2) is granted, to enable
the plaintiff to proceed to adduce evidence by way of affidavit in respect of the experts
listed in paragraphs 1.1 to 1.7 of the notice of motion.
2 The plaintiff’s claim for past medical and hospital-related expenses is separated
in terms of Uniform Rule 33(4) and is postponed sine die.
6 Mahlangu fn 1.
13
3 The defendant shall make payment in the sum of R1 100 000 (One Million One
Hundred Thousand Rand) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ capital amount ’) to the
Plaintiff’s attorneys, Edeling van Niekerk Inc, in respect of the Plaintiff’s claim for
General Damages, which amount shall be payable by direct transfer into the Plaintiff’s
Attorneys trust account, details of which are as follows:
Account Name : Edeling Van Niekerk Inc
Bank : Nedbank
Branch : Business Westrand
Account number : 1[…]
Branch code : 128605
Ref : MAT3174
4 The defendant shall pay interest a tempore morae on the capital amount
aforesaid at a rate of 10.25% per annum from 180 (One Hundred and Eighty) days after
date of this order to date of final payment.
5 The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff’s party and party costs as taxed or
agreed inclusive of Counsel’s fees on Scale ‘B’, such costs to include, at the discretion
of the Taxing Master, the costs, attendant upon the employment by the plaintiff of the
following expert witnesses:
5.1. Dr Hoffmann - Plastic and Reconstruction Surgeon
(Report and RAF4)
5.2. Dr S Bugwandin - Orthopaedic Surgeon
5.3. Dr D Mutyaba - Neurosurgeon (Report and RAF4)
5.4. Dr N Rughoo - Clinical Psychologist
5.5. Nina Du Plessis - Educational Psychologist
5.6. Mari Lize Nel - Industrial Psychologist
5.7. Liezel Gildenhuys - Occupational Therapist
________________________
14
S NAIDOO
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Appearances
For the Plaintiff: ACJ Van Dyk
Instructed by: Edeling Van Niekerk Inc
c/o McIntyre & Van Der Post
12 Barnes Street
Westdene
Bloemfontein
(Ref: Mr MVC Gerdener/AAD186)
For the Defendant: M Lephoto
Instructed by: The State Attorney
11
th Floor, Fedsure Building
49 Charlotte Maxeke Street
Bloemfontein
(Ref: ML-0131202323543/Ms C Bornman)