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
MPUMALANGA DIVISION, MBOMBELA MAIN SEAT
Case No.: 4929/2021
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO
DATE: 3/09/2026
SIGNATURE:
In the matter between:
PEARL ZANDISIWE HLOPHE PLAINTIFF
And
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
VUKEYA ADJP
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
[1] This is a personal injury claim against the Road Accident Fund arising from a
motor vehicle collision which, according to the plaintiff, occurred on 22 July 2018,
wherein the plaintiff was a passenger. She sustained a fracture of the right pubic ramus
- right iliac fracture with affection of right SI - joint. She also suffered loss of bladder
control.
[2] The Plaintiff was taken to Rob Ferreira Hospital where she was admitted and
discharged on 30 July 2018. X -rays confirmed a fracture of the right pubic ramus. As a
result of the aforementioned, the plaintiff sued the Road Accident Fund ("RAF") as the
liable entity in terms of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 ("RAF ACT'). She
caused summons to be issued to RAF to claim damages she allegedly suffered
because of the accident under various heads of damages, including, but not limited to,
general damages and loss of earnings/earning capacity.
[3] Merits were settled 100% in favour of the plaintiff and the parties agreed that a
Section 17(4)(a) undertaking to cover her future medical expenses will be provided by
the defendant. The matter proceeded only on quantum, namely general damages and
loss of earnings.
[4] At the beginning of the trial, a formal application in terms of Rule 38 (2) of the
Uniform Rules of Court ("the Rules") was brought on behalf of the Plaintiff, in terms of
which she sought for the evidence of the following experts to be led by way of affidavit:
4.1. Dr LA Oelofse - Orthopaedic Surgeon
4.2. Dr PAG Botha - Urologist
4.3. D Benade - Educational Psychologist
4.4. C Durandt - Occupational Therapist
4.5. D de Vlaming - Industrial Psychologist
4.6. J Potgieter - Actuary
[5] The defendant did not oppose the application and stated that it will also rely on
the reports filed by the plaintiff's experts as it had not obtained any expert reports. The
application was granted by the Court.
EVIDENCE OF THE EXPERTS
[6] Dr Oelofse's evidence was that the plaintiff reported that she was using 14
painkillers per week, which according to the doctor indicated moderate pain due to the
injury she sustained in the accident. She complained that she was experiencing pain
when standing for long periods, walking long distances, kneeling, squatting, handling
heavy objects or sitting for extended periods. The doctor observed a moderate to
severe tenderness of the pelvis and observed signs of a previous fracture of the right
ilium with affection of both SI joints. The fracture had united. The plaintiff suffered from
incontinence and had to undergo surgery. She reported that she was a sales assist ant
and her work entailed standing for long periods of time, handling heavy items and
walking continuously. The doctor opined that the plaintiff will be suited to perform a
sedentary type of job where she can stand up frequently in order not to sit for extended
periods of time continuously.
[7] According to Ms D Benade, the Educational Psychologist who assessed the
Plaintiff on 22 August 2023, during the assessment, she presented with an overall
average cognitive ability on the cognitive test battery. Considering her level of
functioning at the time it seemed that her cognitive potential remained the same. The
plaintiff reported that she never failed any grades from Grade 1 - 11. According to a
letter from Lowveld High School, she was progressed to Grade 10 after her marks in
Mathematics were adjusted. She dropped out of school prior to completing Grade 12
due to financial constraints and enrolled at a TVET College after the accident to attempt
further studies.
[8] She completed a National Certificate (Vocational) level 2 and enrolled for a level
3 and level 4 in Engineering and Related Design. She has not completed the
qualifications yet due to failures and a lack of financial resources. She indicated during
the assessment that she was motivated to complete the qualification. She enrolled at a
TVET College in 2019. She completed a National Certificate (Vocational) in Engineering
and Related Design at level 2 and attempted the Level 3 and 4 qualifications in 2020 -
2021. She has not completed the qualificators yet due to failures and a lack of financi al
resources. She found employment as a sales lady between 2022 - 2023 and had
difficulties performing her duties which required long periods of standing. She was not
employed at the time of the assessment.
[9] The plaintiff reported that she was a happy and healthy individual prior to the
accident but experienced physical pain when sitting or standing for long periods after
the accident. She was also anxious when travelling. From the findings of the
assessment the plaintiff presented with underlying feelings of inadequacy, helplessness,
and incompetence. She also had underlying resentment for failing to achieve life goals.
It was opined that psychotherapy will improve her psychological functioning that may
improve her ability to cope emotionally and function as a student. The expert opined
that pre-morbidly, the plaintiff would have been able to complete a National Certificate
(Vocational) Level 4 qualification in Engineering and Related Design if the accident did
not happen. Post -morbidly, she would still be able to complete a National Certificate
(Vocational) Level 4 qualification in Engineering and Related Design.
[10] The Occupational Therapist, Ms C du Randt assessed the plaintiff on 5
September 2023 and brought out an addendum report on 25 March 2026. She stated in
the report that considering the plaintiff's attained qualifications up to date, she would be
the report that considering the plaintiff's attained qualifications up to date, she would be
able to work in the engineering industry with applied positional changes and ergonomic
workstation and seating. She is advised to seek employment of a more sedentary
nature to limit strain in her pelvis and right knee to prevent accelerating the
degenerative changes in these areas as indicated by Dr Oleofse.
[11] It is the Occupational Therapist's opinion that the plaintiff's bladder limitations will
affect any formal employment as she will require access to a toilet as a matter of
urgency throughout the workday. Her self -employment at present is favourable in this
regard as she is at home and able to access the toilet without limitations in productivity.
Based on the physical and functional capacity assessment, she is best suited for
sedentary to light weight handling demands with moderate mobility and limite d agility
requirements. She will benefit from positional changes throughout a workday. Regarding
the question related to residual earning capacity, the expert opined that the plaintiff does
have the ability to meet the inherent demands of sedentary to light weight with moderate
mobility and limited agility requirements. She will benefit from positional changes
throughout a workday.
[12] The expert remained of the opinion that the plaintiff should seek employment of a
more sedentary nature to limit strain in her pelvis and right knee to prevent accelerating
the degenerative changes in these areas. She opined that the plaintiff is an unequal
competitor in the open labour market in her own or any other occupation, due to the
accident-related injuries and sequelae thereof, poor medical and rehabilitative
management post-accident, the degenerative nature of her injuries as well as indicated
future medical and rehabilitative intervention.
[13] Mr David Vlamingh, the Industrial Psychologist, opined that uninjured, the plaintiff
would probably have been able to secure employment before commencing full -time
studies. She may have been able to do so from 1 September 2018 until the end of 18
December 2018, earning just below the median for unskilled workers at the time
(around R2,000 p/m in 2018 -rand value). He referred to the Quantum Yearbook by
Robert Koch (2018 Publication) in which the salary range for unskilled employees at the
Robert Koch (2018 Publication) in which the salary range for unskilled employees at the
time was R725 - R2, 125 - R6,083 per month. According to the Industrial Psychologist,
she would still have enrolled for full -time studies in 2019, with similar results as post -
accident. She would have entered the employment market with her National Vocational
Certificate in Engineering and Related Design Level 2 (with most level 3 and 4
subjects), but importantly, she would have been physically and psychologically fully able
to compete for the full spectrum of vocational opportunities available to her.
[14] If the accident did not intervene, the plaintiff would have been able to perform
semi-skilled work that ranged from light physical demand up to heavy physical demand.
Based on her engineering studies, she would probably have been able to find semi -
skilled work in the production or construction environment such as Machine Operator,
Production Worker or Factory Worker. She would probably have been able to find work
by July 2022 earning a salary just below the median for semi -skilled workers at the time
(around R5,500 p/m in 2022 - rand value). Without any physical restrictions and with
good communication skills she would have gained skills and experience over the years
to allow her to progress to a position as team leader or even supervisor by age 45. Her
salary would probably have increased in a straight line to reach a peak by age 45 at the
upper quartile for semi-skilled employees in the non-corporate sector. The plaintiff would
probably have earned inflationary increases until retirement at age 65. He opined that
there was no indication that the plaintiff would not have been able to continue working
until the normal retirement age of 65.
[15] Regarding her career prospects post -accident, it was reported that the plaintiff
rested to recover for approximately 3 months, which made it impossible for her to
secure employment. In 2019, she started full -time studies at the Kanyamazane TVET
College in Engineering and Related Design. She continued full -time studies until the
end of 2021, but she only managed to complete the level 2 of her National Vocational
Certificate in Engineering and Related Design during this period. After exiting the
college at the end of 2021, she was looking for suitable work that she would be able to
cope with given her injuries and the only work she could find from April 2022 was that of
cope with given her injuries and the only work she could find from April 2022 was that of
a Sales Assistant for a rug merchant. She reportedly earned R200 per day and worked
5 days per week. Therefore, her monthly income was R4,333 per month. She did not
receive any payslips The business however closed in April 2023, and she was looking
for work from May 2023 until March 2024.
[16] In April 2024 she secured a position as a Sales Assistant at Hospitality Suit
trading as Continental Linen where she was still working at the time of drafting the
report. Her salary at the time was RS,800 per month, placing her between the lower
quartile and the median for semi -skilled workers in the non -corporate sector. The
plaintiff's employer, Ms Viana van den Heever, was contacted and she confirmed the
plaintiff's employment and income as reported. She indicated that the plaintiff was
taking more sick leave than her colleagues, but they were accommodating her at work
when she needs to take a rest break. Based on all the available information and expert
medical opinions received, the expert concluded that the plaintiff will be restricted to
sedentary to light work and her post -school studies will not be of any significant benefit
to her.
[17] The best possible future scenario, according to the Industrial Psychologist, was
for the plaintiff to continue with her current employment in the retail sector but hopefully
transitioning to more sedentary work such as Receptionist or Administrator. The expert's
opinion was that prior to the accident Ms Hlophe was healthy, fit, and able to work in
any semi- skilled position in line with her studies in Engineering. Although she would not
have completed any significant tertiary studies, she showed the ambition and motivation
to develop her vocational skills and would have been competitive. She had a realistic
expectation to increase her earnings in years to come as she gained more skills and
experience, and she would have been able to work until retirement at the age of 65.
After the accident she continued with her studies, but her post accident studies were not
entirely successful (she failed some subjects at level 3 and level 4) and she was unable
to secure employment in line with her studies mainly due to her physical limitations.
[18] The expert concluded that the plaintiff will no longer be able to work in her more
[18] The expert concluded that the plaintiff will no longer be able to work in her more
physically demanding pre -accident career in the engineering and related industries. As
a result, she had to change her career and is now limited to sedentary to light work with
workplace accommodations, with a lower earnings potential. She has suffered a past
and ongoing future loss of earnings as a result of the accident in question and its
sequelae. Her loss can be actuarially calculated based on the difference between her
postulated pre - and post - accident career and earnings potential. The expert
recommended that a moderately higher than normal post -accident contingency
deduction be applied to acknowledge her risk of unemployment due to her truncated
career options.
[19] An actuarial calculation was done by GRS Actuarial Consulting on 9 April 2026
based on the aforesaid, which calculation reflects the following:
Past Loss
Pre-Morbid: R338 477.00
Post-Morbid: R204 113.00
Total: R134 264.00
Future Loss:
Pre-Morbid: R4 018 598.00
Post-Morbid: R2 151 523.00
Total: R1 867 075.00
[20] The plaintiff submitted that in view of the above opinions, the contingencies to be
applied should be as follows:
Past Loss:
Pre-morbid 5% = R321 553.15
Post-morbid 0% = R204 213.00
Total: R117 304.15
Future Loss:
Pre-morbid 15% = R3 415 808.30
Post-morbid 30% = R1 506 066.01
Total: R1 909 742.29
Total Past and Future loss: R2 027 046.44
THE PARTIES' SUBMISSIONS
[21] The defendant's submission was that there was no past loss of earnings pre -
accident as the plaintiff was a minor child at the time of the accident. In respect of past
loss of earning, the defendant submitted that higher contingencies should be applica ble
because, had the accident not occurred, her future earnings would more or less remain
the same. Her academic history indicates that, she has always had issues with
mathematics and other subjects and at some point, she was even promoted to the next
level in mathematics as per the letter from school but went and registered for a cause
that needs mathematics. Had the accident not happened, she would have still not
completed her national certificate, and she would have dropped out again as she did.
The defendant suggested to the court that contingencies are to be applied as follows:
PAST INCOME FUTURE INCOME TOTAL INCOME
Income if the accident
did not occur
4 018 598 4 018 598
Less contingencies 30%
Sub-total 4 018 598 2 813 018.60
Income given accident
did occur
204 213 2 151 523 2 355 736
Less contingencies 10% 15%
Subtotal 183 791.70 1 828 794.55 2012 586, 25
Total 800 423,32
[22] In trying to quantify the plaintiff's claim for general damages, plaintiff's Counsel
acknowledged that Courts were warned against a method of calculating general
damages based upon pure mathematical principles which do not recognise and/or allow
the court to exercise its discretion. The growing tendency in awarding higher amounts to
injured parties in respect of general damages remains only one of a multiple of factors
which the court should consider in exercising its discretion. Counsel referred the Court
to the following cases and submitted that an amount of R1 000 000 (One Million Rand)
would be a fair and reasonable amount for general damages suffered:
1. The matter of MJ Masemola v RAF (53419/2014) 2017 ZAGPPHC 1202
(3 April 2017) - The Plaintiff sustained the following injuries: Left compound tibia
fracture. Fracture of right acetabulum. Closed injury to pelvis. Fracture of the
right pubic rami. Injury to left knee. Soft tissue injuries to neck. The court
awarded R850 000.00. (R1 275 507.00 In current value)
2. The matter of Mzendana v Road Accident Fund (449/06) [2007) ZAECHC
127 (30 August 2007) - The Plaintiff sustained the following injuries: Fracture of
left tibia; Fracture right acetabulum; Ulcer of left heel; Lung contusion: Injury to
knee and ankle (left). The court awarded an amount of R350 000.00 for general
damages in 2007. (R953 036.05 in current value)
3. In the matter of Kgopyane v Road Accident Fund (43235/2014) [2016)
ZAGPPHC 872 (22 September 2016) - The plaintiff sustained the following
injuries: A fracture of the right superior rami as well as a left inferior ramus
fracture along the link of the bone; Chest contusion injury to her right foot; A soft
tissue injury to her neck and shoulder; Suffered from moderate depression and
post-traumatic stress disorder; and damage to her bladder The court awarded an
amount of R600 000.00 in 2016.(R947 790.53 in current value)
[23] The defendant was of the view that an amount of R600 000, 00 would be fair and
reasonable as an award for general damages. It submitted that "courts are not bound by
the view of any expert. Courts make ultimate decision on issues on which experts
provide an opinion." (See RAF Tribunal & others v Gouws & another [2017] ZA SCA,
188 [2018] 1 ALL SA 701 (SCA) para 33). It also relied on the case of Kgopyane v Road
Accident Fund (43235/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 872 (22 September 2016) also referred
to by the plaintiff and to the case of Nkonoane v Road Accident Fund (2905/2021)
to by the plaintiff and to the case of Nkonoane v Road Accident Fund (2905/2021)
[2023] ZAFSHC 186 (23 May 2023), where the plaintiff was awarded R650 000, 00 00
(currently R732 717.99), after sustaining a pelvic fracture with implants in situ; a
humerus fracture and multiple soft tissue injuries, to support its submission that R650
000, would be a fair and reasonable award for general damages to the plaintiff.
GENERAL DAMAGES
[24] It is common cause that the plaintiff indeed qualifies for compensation for general
damages for serious injury in terms of the narrative test in that she suffered, amongst
others, long -term impairment and loss of a body function. She suffered from
incontinence and has to constantly urinate and use sanitary towels. Her injuries
disadvantage her immensely and adversely affect her quality of life in that she
experiences pain when standing for long periods or when walking long distances,
kneeling, squattin g, handling heavy objects or sitting for extended periods. She also
presented with underlying feelings of inadequacy, helplessness, and incompetence. It is
however difficult to determine if the difficulties she experiences when walking long
distances, standing, kneeling, etc, can be 100% attributed to the injury sustained in the
current accident or some of it can be attributed to the "previous fracture of the right ilium
with affection of both SI joints" observed by Dr Oelofse.
[25] Often, general damages are determined by comparing cases under consideration
and previously decided ones, although generally, previously decided cases are never
similar and their purpose stops at comparing them to the current and nothing more. In
Protea Insurance Co. v Lamb 1971 (1) SA 530 (SCA), the court held that:
"In assessing general damages for bodily injuries, the process of comparison
with comparable cases does not take the form of a meticulous examination of
awards made in other cases in order to fix the amount of compensation, nor
should the process be allowed to dominate the inquiry as to become a fetter
upon the Court's general discretion in such matters. Comparable cases, when
upon the Court's general discretion in such matters. Comparable cases, when
available, should rather be used to afford some guidance in a general way
towards assisting the Court in arriving at such an award which is not substantially
out of general accord with previous awards in broadly similar cases, regard had
to all the factors which are considered to be relevant in the assessment of
general damages. At the same time, it may be permissible, in an appropriate
case to test any assessment arrived at upon this basis by reference to the
general pattern of previous awards in cases where the injuries and their sequelae
may have been either more serious or less than those in the case under
consideration."
[26] Having assessed and considered the previous cases referred to by Counsel and
having perused and considered the reports of the experts filed by the plaintiff, I am of
the view that an amount of R750 000.00 would be a fair and reasonable amount to be
awarded to the plaintiff for general damages.
LOSS OF EARNINGS
[27] Where the method of actuarial calculations 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. (See Southern Insurance Association v Bailey (Southern
Insurance Association 1984 (1) SA 98 (A) at 116-117). The Supreme Court of Appeals
said the following in Road Accident Fund v G S O Guedes [2006] SCA 18 (RSA); 2006
(5) SA 583 (SCA) (20 March 2006):
"It is trite that a person is entitled to be compensated to the extent that the
person's patrimony has been diminished in consequence of another's
negligence. Such damages include loss of future earning capacity (see for
example President Insurance Co Ltd v Mathews 1992 (1) SA 1 (A) at 5C-E). The
calculation of the quantum of a future amount, such as loss of earning capacity,
is not, as I have already indicated, a matter of exact mathematical calculation. By
its nature such an enquiry is speculative and a court can therefore only make an
estimate of the present value of the loss which is often a very rough estimate
(see for example Southern Insurance Association Ltd v Bailey NO. 1984 (1) SA
98 (A) The court necessarily exercises a wide discretion when it assesses the
quantum of damages due to loss of earning capacity and has a large discretion
to award what it considers right. Courts have adopted the approach that in order
to assist in such a calculation, an actuarial computation is a useful basis for
establishing the quantum of damages. Even then, the trial court has a wide
discretion to award what it believes is just (see for example the Bailey case and
Van der Plaats v South African Mutual Fire and General Insurance Co Ltd 1980
(3) SA 105 (A) 114F-115D).
[28] The contingencies allow for general hazards of life such as periods of general
unemployment, possible loss of earnings due to illness, the risk of future retrenchment
etc. As was stated in Van Der Merwe v Road Accident Fund 7407/2022) [2025]
ZAWCHC 158 (3 April 2025) para [20], the determination of loss of earnings and the
incorporation of contingencies falls within the ambit of judicial discretion, the Court has
to decide on the approach peculiar to the facts of the present matter. By definition,
contingencies are adjustments made to account for the uncertainties of life, including
the risk of unemployment, illness, economic downturns, changes in carrier path or early
death. They recognise that a person's working life rarely proceeds without interruption
(See K.M v Road Accident Fund (RAF 276/2022) [2025] ZANWHC 133 (25 July 2025)
para [38]).
[29] It is, in my view, important that the plaintiff must testify to create the essential
foundation and lay the basis for her claim. In cases, like this, where the plaintiff does not
testify, the Court is deprived of essential information to consider apart from the evidence
of the experts. In this case, for example, the plaintiff would have better explained what
she is currently busy with and whether she has been able to follow her career path in
Engineering or what she intends to do with her qualifications in the future, etc,
Engineering or what she intends to do with her qualifications in the future, etc,
considering the fact that the reports relied on were prepared sometime ago.
[30] Van der Schyff J (Mabuse J et R Matthys AJ concurring) held in Advocate Viljoen
N.O v Road Accident Fund (A76/19) [2021 ZAGPPHC 461] that:
"[13] When a claimant's loss of earning capacity is assessed, courts essentially
use one of two methods. (Southern Insurance Association v Bailey NO 1984 (1)
SA 98 .) The first is establishing a reasonable and fair amount based on the
proven facts and the prevailing circumstances. This entails the determination of a
lump-sum that the court regards to be fair and just in the given circumstances.
The second approach is to establish an amount by a mathematical calc ulation
based on the proven facts of the case. Millard (D Millard, 'Loss of earning
capacity: The difference between the sum -formula approach and the 'somehow -
or-other' approach', Law, Democracy & Development 2007, vol 11:1.) opines that
courts are likely to follow the first approach in circumstances where it is
impossible to make a mathematical calculation, for example, where the claimant
is a minor who has not yet embarked on a career path.
[14] This court must take into consideration the fact that the plaintiff did not testify
in person. There was no direct evidence from her. Her evidence would have been
valuable in assessing what the future might hold for her. This, however, does not
mean that the court cannot consider the evidence of the expert witnesses. It
does, however, impact on the quantification method that will be utilised. It is
impossible to accurately determine the patient's post -morbid progression without
evidence of how the clai mant sees and experiences her future unfolding. In the
claimant's absence, insufficient light was shed on the reason for her failing her
first year and why she did not consider another study field. Due to the patient's
failure to testify, a considerable measure of uncertainty prevails. This disregards
the application of a purely mathematical model, even if higher than normal
contingencies are applied. It is trite that in these circumstances, the court may
decide to fix a lump sum as compensation, although i t considers the actuarial
decide to fix a lump sum as compensation, although i t considers the actuarial
calculations as one of the factors in determining the award. [15] Even in
determining a lump-sum, the court is guided by the evidence before it."
[31] I agree with the views expressed in Adv Viljoen v RAF (supra). I am of the view
that the plaintiff in fact suffered or will suffer a true patrimonial loss in that her
employment situation has manifestly changed. The plaintiff has suffered an ongoing
future loss of earings because of the accident in question and its sequelae. Her earning
capacity has been diminished or lost by the wrongful act of the defendant's insured
driver and therefore it becomes the duty of this court to quantify such a loss. In trying to
quantify her loss I have had regard to the following material facts:
31.1. She is unable to secure employment in line with her studies mainly due to
her physical limitations.
31.2. She will no longer be able to work in her more physically demanding pre -
accident career in the engineering and related industries.
31.3. She had to change her career and is now limited to sedentary to light work
with workplace accommodations, with a lower earnings potential.
31.4. Because of her bladder limitations, her formal work employment will be
affected as she requires access to a toilet as a matter of urgency throughout the
workday.
31.5. Although the occupational therapist opined that that the plaintiff does have
the ability to meet the inherent demands of sedentary to light weight with
moderate mobility and limited agility requirements, she will benefit from positional
changes throughout a workday.
31.6. If the accident did not intervene, the plaintiff would have been able to
perform semi -skilled work that ranged from light physical demand up to heavy
physical demand. Based on her engineering studies, she would probably have
been able to find semi -skilled work in the production or construction environment
such as Machine Operator, Production Worker or Factory Worker, but for the
accident, her abilities have been limited.
31.7. The plaintiff is an unequal competitor in the open labour market in her own
or any other occupation, due to the accident -related injuries and sequelae
thereof.
31.8. She will be suited to perform a sedentary type of job where she can stand
up frequently in order not to sit for extended periods of time continuously and will
have to be employed by an employer who can accommodate her limitations,
which is very difficult in our current economy.
[32] In assessing the loss of earning capacity for the plaintiff herein, my view is that
because the plaintiff did not testify to give an essential foundation of her claim, for
example, how she endeavours to approach life henceforth and how far she thinks her
abilities and/or her limitations can extend, and how she sees and experiences her future
unfolding, amongst others, therefore, in my view, the first method as suggested in
Advocate Viljoen N. O v Road Accident Fund and Southern Insurance Association v
Bailey NO (supra) is an appropriate method to employ under the circumstances. This
method allows the court to establish a reasonable and fair amount which is based on
the proven facts and the prevailing circumstances, without using a mathematical or
actuarial calculation.
[33] Having considered all the above and all the opinions expressed by the experts
and the submissions made herein, I am of the view that a lump -sum of R1 750 000. 00
is a fair and reasonable amount to award in respect of loss of earnings in favor of the
plaintiff.
[34] In the result, the following order is made:
34.1. The Defendant is ordered to pay 100% of the Plaintiff's proven or agreed
damages;
34.2. The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of R2 500 000.
00 (Two Million, Five Hundred Thousand Rand and Zero Cents) made up as
follows:
34.2.1. General Damages : R 750 000. 00 (Seven Hundred and Fifty
Thousand Rand and Zero Cents)
34.2.2. Loss of Earnings : R1 750 000. 00 (One Million, Seven
Hundred and Fifty Thousand Rand and Zero Cents)
within 180 days from the date of this order.
34.3. The above -mentioned amount to be paid into the Plaintiff's Attorneys,
Frans Schutte & Mathews Phosa Inc. trust account with account number 0[...] at
Standard Bank, White River.
34.4. Should the Defendant fail to make payment as set out in paragraph 2
above then, in this instance, the Defendant shall be liable for payment of interest,
calculated from 14 days after date of granting of this order, at the tempore morae
rate.
34.5. The Defendant will furnish to the Plaintiff with an unlimited Undertaking in
terms of section 17(4)(a) of Act 56 of 1996, to pay the costs of the future
accommodation of the Plaintiff in a hospital or nursing home, or treatment of or
rendering of a service or supplying of goods to her arising from injuries sustained
by her in the collision which occurred on 22 July 2018, after the costs have been
incurred.
34.6. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff's taxed or agreed party and party
costs on a High Court scale of the instructing - and correspondent attorneys,
subject to the discretion of taxing master; and that such costs shall include the
following:
34.6.1. The day fee of counsel Adv. IEC Delport, as well as
reasonable preparation fees including drafting of heads of argument, on
scale C, for trial as set down for 18 May 2026;
34.6.2. The reasonable costs of Plaintiff's attorney for the judicial
case management of 4 December 2024, including preparation and
appearance;
34.6.3. The costs of all medico -legal, actuarial and addendum
reports obtained and/or served by the Plaintiff, as well as such reports
furnished to the Defendant or it's Attorney or in the Defendant's
possession, including the costs of any special investigations (X -rays, MRI
scans, blood test etc.) requested by the relevant expert;
34.6.4. The reasonable costs consequent to attending the medico -
legal examinations;
34.6.5. The costs relating to confirmatory affidavits by medico -legal
experts, as obtained in support of the Plaintiff's application in terms of
Rule 38 (2) application for trial as set down for 18 May 2026;
34.6.6. The costs of the qualification and reservation fees of all
medico-legal experts for trial, as set down for 18 May 2026;
34.6.7. The costs of consultations with the Plaintiff to consider the
Offers of Settlement;
34.6.8. The costs of interpreter for trial as set down for 18 May
2026.
34.7. Should the Defendant fail to make payment of the taxed or agreed costs
within 14 days, then the Defendant will be liable for payment of interest on the
taxed costs or agreed costs calculated from 14 days from the date of the taxation
or settlement at the tempore morae rate.
VUKEYA LD
ACTING DEPUTY JUDGE PRESIDENT
APPEARANCES
For the Plaintiff: Adv. IEM Delport (Pretoria Bar)
ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Mrs. Evan Heerden - SDJ Inc.
Mbombela
Tel: (013) 004 0564 / 064 909 1309
Emaii: evartheerden@sd jinc.co.za; ismadel@okchambers.co.za
REF: EVAN HEERDEN/ SN755 [H243]
For the Plaintiff: Ms M Tsebane
ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT
State attorney
Mbombela
Email: Maninit@raf.cp.za
Cell: 066 303 4098
CLAIM NO: 329/12689507/208/0
LINK NO: 4436630