---

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: 17339/14

In the matter between:

Adv. P.R. SEKHUKHUNE obo N N                                                                     PLAINTIFF

And

ROAD ACCIDENT FUND                                                                                DEFENDANT

 

JUDGEMENT

 

COLLIS J:

 

INTRODUCTION

1. In this action the plaintiff claims damages on behalf of a minor, Ms N N emanating from a motor vehicle collision wherein the minor was knocked down by a motor vehicle.

2. The minor was a pedestrian when she was knocked down by a motor vehicle with registration letters and numbers NP[…] (hereinafter referred to as the "insured vehicle)".

3. It is alleged at paragraph 7 of the particulars of claim, that as a result of the collision the minor sustained the following injuries:

3.1 head injury.

3.2 injury to the right hand.

4. Furthermore, at paragraph 8 thereof it is alleged that as a result of the injuries sustained, the minor:

4.1 is experiencing pain and suffering;

4.2 was hospitalized and is still attending medical treatment;

4.3 has a tired right hand;

4.4 has facial disfigurement.

5. At the commencement of the proceedings and at the request of the parties the court was requested to record the following:

5.1 that the issue of liability was previously settled on the basis that the defendant shall pay 100% of the plaintiff's agreed and proven damages;[1]

5.2 that the minor's claim for general damages was rejected by the Road

Accident Fund in terms of Regulation 3 of the Road Accident Fund Act No. 56 of 1996;

5.3 that the respective parties' medico-legal reports were admitted by the court except the medico-legal reports relating to general damages. It was agreed between the parties that the reports can be accepted as correct and that same can be admitted into evidence, without the need for presentation of oral evidence by the medico-legal experts.

 

COMMON CAUSE FACTS

6. At the time of the collision, the minor represented by a Curator ad Litem in these proceedings was 4 years and one month old and attending a creche.

7. The collision occurred on 4 November 2009.

 

DISPUTED ISSUES

8. This court was called upon to determine the earning capacity of the minor child. Whether pre-morbid the minor child still retains her pre-morbid earning potential, having regard to the accident and the appropriate contingency deductions to be applied. In this regard as per the amended particulars of claim, the plaintiff's claim was for an amount of R4 100 000.00.

 

ONUS

9. In order to assess whether the plaintiff will be entitled to compensation for the minor's pre-morbid earning potential, the plaintiff bears the onus of proving that the minor has in fact suffered such a loss in earning potential. In this regard, the plaintiff must place before this court sufficient evidence to enable the court to qualify such loss. The expression earning capacity means the earnings that the claimant is most likely to generate by using his/her capacity to work.[2]

10. In the decision of Prinsloo v Road Accident Fund 2009 (5) SA 406 (SE) Chetty J referred to the principles relating to the loss of earnings and earning capacity as follows:

"A person's all round capacity to earn money consists inter alia, of an individual's talent, skills, including his/her present position and plans for the future and, of course, external factors over which a person has no control for instance, in casu, considerations of equity. A court has to construct and compare two hypothetical models of the plaintiff's earnings after the date on which he/she sustained the injury. In casu, the court must calculate, on the one hand the total present monetary value of all that the plaintiff would have been capable of bringing into her patrimony had she not been injured and on the other, the total present monetary value of all that the plaintiff would be able to bring into her patrimony whilst handicapped by her injury. When the two hypothetical totals have been compared the shortfall in value (if any) is the extent of patrimonial loss At the same time the evidence may establish that an injury may in fact have no applicable effect on earning capacity, in which event the damage under this head will be nil."

11. It therefore follows that where a claimant's earning capacity has been impaired or compromised, such capacity constitutes a loss. If such loss diminishes the claimant patrimony, the latter is entitled to be compensated to the extent that his/or her patrimony has been so diminished.

12. In the unreported decision of Deysel v RAF ZAGJHC 242 delivered on 24 June 2011 Bizos AJ at paragraph 8 stated that earning capacity refers to "the part of a person's patrimony but this capacity can only be proven to have been lowered and the damages for this quantified, by proving an actual loss of income."

13. At paragraph 21 of the same judgment Bizos AJ expressed himself as follows: "that a causal link has to be established between the damage suffered (in casu the loss of earning capacity and the diminution of the claimants' estate before such damages can be said compensable. This is true even though earning capacity on its own is seen as part of one's patrimony. In the same way that a person's home forms part of their patrimony and damages to this part of their patrimony has to be proved by showing actual monetary loss caused by such damage and actual monetary loss must be suffered (i.e. loss of income before one's earning capacity can be said to have been damaged for purposes of a patrimonial claim under delict. This is in essence the difference between patrimonial and non-patrimonial loss)".

 

EVIDENCE

14. By agreement between the parties the following expert reports were handed into the records by way of exhibits:

14.1 exhibit A, Supplemented Joint Minutes.

14.2 exhibit 8, The Plaintiffs Quantum Documentation.

14.3 exhibit C, The Defendants Addendum Actuarial Report.

14.4 exhibit D, The Defendant's Quantum Documentation.

15. The defendant further admitted that the minor, Ms N N, was born on 27 October 2015 and as at date of the injury she was 4 years and one month old and attending a creche. As such, the minor at the time of the accident was still very young and at a developmental stage.

16. Dr R. Naicker-Medical Practitioner completed the RAF 4 Form after conducting his medical assessment of the minor on 30 May 2013.[3] During his assessment he recorded that the minor sustained a head injury and that she had suffered a right closed humerus fracture which was treated conservatively. At the time the doctor also concluded that future neurological and psychological events cannot be excluded nor could future problems with her right hand be excluded. At the time of his assessment the doctor opined that the minor was too young to determine the full impact of the injuries on her future health and mental status.

17. Dr S.K Mafeelane the (Orthopaedic Surgeon) examined the minor on 28 June 2016.[4] During this examination the minor complained of suffering from headaches, a painful right ear and right arm. The surgeon further recorded that the minor as a result of her injuries sustained, has difficulty carrying heavy objects and lifting same. She also has difficulty writing for long. He further opined that as the minor is presently a scholar, the injuries that she sustained will make it difficult for her to complete fairly in the open labour market. Deference was however given to the occupational therapist and the industrial psychologist to comment in greater detail on the practical effect of the minor's ability to work in the labour market.

18. Dr R. Yachad the (Orthopaedic Surgeon) on behalf of the defendant examined the minor on 23 March 2018.[5] During his examination of the minor he similarly recorded that the minor suffered a fracture of the right humerus. The surgeon further recorded that the minor's current complaints consists of weekly headaches and pain to her right arm. The surgeon further opined that the minor has reached maximum Medical Improvement. He categorized the minor Whole Person Impairment to 2%.

19. On 12 February 2019 both surgeons conducted a meeting of experts.[6] During such meeting the experts agreed that the minor's Whole Person Impairment is 3% having regard to her clavicle fracture.

20. On 30 June 2016 the minor was examined by Dr. Tshepo Moja, a Specialist Neurosurgeon.[7] During such examination the minor was accompanied by her grandmother and the interview conducted in English and Zulu. As to the minors post injury status, the surgeon recorded that the minor suffers from headaches, forgetfulness, learning difficulties, behaviour problems and right shoulder pain. It was also reported to the Neurosurgeon that the minor is easily forgetful and that she is performing poorly at school although she has made consistent progress.

21. Based on the available evidence, the Neurosurgeon opined that the minor sustained a mild diffuse traumatic brain injury, but that deference was made to a Clinical Psychologist for a neuropsychological evaluation and opinion on her cognitive functions and behaviour post injury. The surgeon further recorded that most patients make a good recovery post mild head injury. However more especially children with a developing brain, there may be in some cases residual neurobehavioral problems which may have a negative impact on progress at school. The surgeon further expressed the opinion that the minor was at pre-school at the time of the accident and is at present attending mainstream schooling and as a result of her residual right shoulder pain she may have some difficulty with strenuous physical work in the future. Deference was however made to the Occupational Therapist and Industrial Psychologist for her future earning potential.

22. Dr Erastus Kiratu, the Neurosurgeon on behalf of the defendant, examined the minor on 7 March 2018 and pursuant thereto, compiled a report.[8] In his report, the surgeon recorded that the minor complained of suffering from frequent headaches and that she continues to experience severe pain in her right arm. Furthermore, the surgeon recorded that the minor complained that she cannot do manual tasks such as washing or heavy lifting due to pain in the right arm. It was however recorded that the minor was left-handed. As to her higher mental function, the assessment revealed that she is fully orientated in time, place and person. She does not hear well, even though she did not display this challenges during the assessment.

23. It should be noted that no joint minute was presented before this court by the respective Neurosurgeons.

24. On 5 March 2018 the minor was assessed by Mr N.L. Nkwanyana, a Clinical Psychologist who prepared a report on behalf of the defendant.[9] During such examination the minor complained of experiencing severe headaches, occasional dizziness, increased levels of fatigue and pain in her arm during cold weather. During such examination, the minor also volunteered that she struggles with poor memory and impaired concentration and that she has become short tempered. During his assessment the psychologist conducted a range of psychological instruments and concluded that the minor's intellectual functioning was found to be mildly impaired, which is the aftermath of the injuries that she sustained in the accident in question. As to her educational incapacity, it was ascertained from collateral information obtained that her scholastic performance has dropped since Grade 4. The expert however was not presented with any school reports to verify this information.

25. The assessment conducted, indicated notable deficits in areas of cognition that are central to learning and as a result the expert opined that the minor would be expected to struggle scholastically as she progresses further with her formal education. Her scholastic difficulties would be expected to become more salient as she gets faced with more complex demands and increasing expectations. The clinical psychologist however defers her post morbid scholastic potential to an Educational Psychologist.

26. The minor's Clinical Psychologist conducted her assessment on 23 August 2017. Pursuant to such assessment a medico-legal report was also prepared.[10] The Clinical Psychologist opined that after having conducted various assessment, neuropsychological test results indicate impaired neurocognitive and psychosocial capacity and function compared to her pre-accident functioning. The minor having sustained a mild concussive brain injury, it was not expected that it would result in long-term neurocognitive deficits, but the possible contribution of an organic brain injury, current cognitive/behavioural deficits cannot be excluded. The expert further opined, that given the minor's poor performances on tests of simple attention, complex attention, reaction time, psychomotor speed, processing speed, cognitive flexibility and executive function, it is expected that her school performance will be significantly impacted by her current neuropsychological status.

27. No joint minute was also prepared by the Clinical Psychologists.

28. Ms N, was also examined by an Educational Psychologist Dr M. Mankayi on 19 June 2019.[11] At the time of this assessment, the minor was 12 years and 8 months and attending Grade 7 at the Simandlangetsha Primary School. As to her educational background, the expert recorded that at the time of the accident she was attending creche. Although she has never repeated a grade since commencing school, her grandmother reported that her performance at school is not satisfactorily. In her report the expert opined that it is unlikely that the minor would pass Grade 12 without urgent intervention. She was further of the opinion that the minor has displayed low performance from an educational perspective since Grade 3 and that same is likely to worsen if such intervention is absent. She also opined that because the minor pre­ accident was very young, her pre-accident academic potential cannot be compared to her post-accident academic performance. The expert amongst others proposed that provision should be made for the minor to receive psychotherapeutic sessions to attend to her psychological well-being in order for her to come to terms with her post-accident psychological problems.

29. On behalf of the defendant no Educational Psychologist report was obtain.

30. Both litigants also obtained Occupational Therapists reports.

31. On 31 January 2019, Ms Adelaide Phasha conducted an assessment of the minor and pursuant thereto, she compiled a report.[12] During the assessment of the minor, she was accompanied by her grandmother and the methods of assessment used consists of physical; functional and formal tests. In her report the expert opined that the minor is not a candidate for mainstream education and that she should instead be placed in a remedial school to cater for her limitations. Considering her current presentation and injuries sustained, the minor would be best suited for simple routine and structured type of employment within the recommended work parameters, she will also require reminders and supervision to ensure that she performs her duties as expected form a physical point of view. The expert expressed an opinion that she would be best suited for sedentary and a light category of work. This severely limits her employment options especially when taking into consideration her psychological and cognitive limitations. She concluded that the minor, given her current school performance, and future occupational endeavours that same are significantly negatively impacted by the cognitive fallout and neuropsychological problems.

32. On behalf of the defendant, Ms Angel Hargreaves, conducted her assessment of the minor on 19 March 2018.[13] She reported that during her assessment of the minor, she complained of suffering from frequent headaches with no specific triggers; pain on her right shoulder; and that she at times become forgetful. During her assessment the grandmother reported to her that the minor's school performance has not been satisfactory and that the minor started struggling at school from Grade 4. Albeit that this report around her school performance was made to her, her academic performance could not be analysed because her school reports were not available. As to her pre-accident vocational potential, the deficits displayed by her were found to be in excess of those that would be expected from a person who sustained a mild head injury. Based on the information provided by her grandmother the expert expressed the opinion that the minor was likely to matriculate within a mainstream environment and that she had the potential to accomplish a post-school education. Post-accident the expert concluded that the minor had passed all her grades and was attending Grade 7 as at date of assessment. From a physical perspective the expert was of the opinion that the minor is likely to have the capacity to cope with the full spectrum demands within the unskilled category, provided that she undergoes the recommended physiotherapy rehabilitation.

33. On 12 March 2019, the Occupational Therapists met and produced a joint minute pursuant thereto.[14] In their joint minute the therapists were in agreement that the minor will benefit from occupational therapy intervention to achieve the aims stipulated in their respective reports. Further, they were in agreement that the minor is best suited for simple routine and structured type of unskilled employment. Ms Hargreaves was of the opinion that physically the minor is likely to have the capacity to cope with the full spectrum demands within the unskilled category, provided that she undergoes the recommended physiotherapy rehabilitation.

34. On 30 January 2019 the minor was assessed by Mr. D. Jooste an Industrial Psychologist. Pursuant to such examination, a medico-legal report was prepared.[15] In his report the expert concluded that but for the accident, the minor had the learning potential to complete Grade 12 with a certificate endorsement. As her family fell within the lower income bracket, she would have been dependent, on alternative financial support in order to engage in tertiary studies. Post-morbid and based on the information at hand, it appears that the accident has left the minor with physical, psychological and cognitive difficulties that have significantly limited her career prospects. The expert further confirmed that the minor would only be suited for supported employment in which she can receive appropriate support and supervision in order to assist her to function better in the workplace and to retain her work. According to the expert she is considered vulnerable to compete fairly with her peers in the open labour market.

35. Mr. S.P. Gumede an Industrial Psychologist also prepared a medico-legal report on behalf of the defendant.[16]

36. In the joint minute prepared by the Industrial Psychologists on 8 March 2019, the experts agree that the minor is presently attending Grade 8 and that she has to date, not failed a grade.[17] They further both agree that her school performance has not been satisfactorily as this was reported to them, by her grandmother. They further agree with the conclusions reached by the Educational Psychologist that the minor would have passed all her grades competently and that she would have been able to complete Grade 12 in 2023. Thereafter she would have enrolled at a tertiary institution, for a (1) one year course to obtain a higher certificate. Having entered the labour market, she would have received inflationary annual increases until retirement age of 65 years' dependent on her health, motivation and company policy the time. Post­ accident they agree that her academic potential has been adversely affected and that she will not be able to reach her pre-accident academic, career and earnings potential. She is considered vulnerable and compromised and will not be able to compete fairly with her peers in the open labour market. As such they agree that she would be best suited in a supported working setting with structured and routine work as well as close supervision. They recommend that the minor should be compensated for the loss of earnings due to lower earning potential as found between the 'but for' and 'having regard for' accident scenarios. The experts were further in agreement that a higher post-accident contingency deduction should be made provision for, as she is at risk of remaining mainly unemployed.

37. On 12 March 2019, GRS Actuarial Consulting, prepared an Actuarial report on behalf of the plaintiff premised on the Joint Minute prepared by the Industrial Psychologists.[18] In relation to the plaintiff's future income, and based on the postulations set out by the Industrial Psychologists the actuary applied a 20% contingency deduction to the minor's future income, had the accident not occurred and a 30 % contingency deduction to her future income, now that the accident had occurred. As such the actuary concluded the minor to have suffered a loss of income in the amount of R 3 790 423.

38. On 12 March 2009, Rosewood Technologies prepared an actuarial report on behalf of the defendant.[19] As per their report, the actuary calculated the minor's present value of future income to be R 4 756 420 if the accident did not occur and earnings of R 466 662 given now that the accident had occurred. To these totals contingency deductions should still be applied to determine the nett loss of earnings suffered by the minor child.

39. In the matter of Southern Insurance Association v Bailey NO 1984 (1) 98 AD, a 2 years old minor child was knocked down by a car. In this matter the Appellate Court applied a 25% contingency percentage deduction on the minor's pre­ morbid scenario earnings.

40. The same rationale is expressed by the author Robert J. Koch, 2019 at p 115 where the author says the following:

Sliding scale: ½%per year to retirement age, i.e. 25% for a child, 20 % for a youth and 10% for a middle age person.

41. Counsel on either side also extensively referred this court to comparable awards with reference to the appropriate contingency adjustments to be applied to the minors' future loss of earnings. In this regard, Mr. Mashaba on behalf of the plaintiff had argued in line with the opinion of the author Robert J.Koch. Mr. Hlongwane on behalf of the defendant, however, had argued that this court should consider a higher contingency of 35% to the minors' pre-morbid earnings as work for which she would best be suited for is not readily available at all and she would therefore have struggled to find employment. If indeed she became employed, her position would have been at the forefront whenever there is a need for retrenchments within the workforce.

42. The exercise for determining the appropriate contingency deduction, however, falls squarely within the subjective discretion of the court as to what will be reasonable and fair to both parties.

43. Having regard to the decision Goodall v President Insurance 1978 (1) SA 389 (W) and the sliding scale method laid down in this decision, as well as the decision of Road Accident Fund v Guedes 2006 (5) 583 SCA, I am of the opinion that a 25% percentages contingency deduction should be applied to the minor's future earnings but for the accident and a 30% contingency deduction should be applied having regard to the accident. These contingency deductions, I consider, would be both fair and equitable and will serve to balance the interest of both parties under the circumstances.

 

ORDER

1. In the result the following order is made:

1.1 The merits have been settled 100% in favour of the plaintiff.

1.2 The defendant shall pay the plaintiff the sum of R 3 240 651.60 (Three Million Two Hundred and Forty Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty-One Thousand Rand and Sixty cents only) in respect of the minor's loss of future earning capacity by way of a lump sum payment on or before 7 November 2019 to the plaintiffs attorney H C Madike Inc, in settlement of the plaintiffs claim by direct transfer into their trust account, the details of which are as follows:

H.C. Madike Incorporated Trust Account

Bank: First National Bank

Branch Code: 270124

Account Number: […]

Type: Trust Account

1.3 The defendant will not be liable for any interest on this payment on condition that payment be made timeously. In the event of the defendant not making the capital amount payment timeously, the defendant willpay interest at the prevailing statutory rate of interest per annum on the amount then outstanding as provided for in section 17(3)(a) of the Road Accident Fund, Act 56 of 1996 (as amended).

1.4 The defendant shall furnish the plaintiff with an undertaking in terms of section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act, for payment of future medical and hospital costs incurred by the minor as a result of the collision which occurred, after such costs has been incurred and upon proof thereof.

1.5 The net proceeds of the payment referred to in paragraph 1.2 above, shall, after deduction of the plaintiff's attorney's legal fees, be payable to a Trust (in favour of the minor to be established within 6(six) months of the date of this order, which Trust will:

1.5.1 Be created on the basis of the provisions as more fully set out in the draft Trust Deed attached hereto marked annexure "A";

1.5.2 have as its main objective to control, management and administration of the capital amount on behalf and for the benefit of the minor;

1.5.3 have, as its Trustee, Mahalia Molefe as Nominee of Absa Trust Ltd, with powers and abilities as set out in the Draft Trust Deed and as furthermore confirmed in the letter by Absa dated 13 March 2019, and attached hereto marked Annexure "B".

1.5.4 Should the aforementioned Trust not be established within the aforementioned 6(six) month period the plaintiff is directed to approach this court within 1 (one) month thereafter in order to obtain further directives in respect of the manner in which the capital amount is to be utilized in favour of the injured.

1.5.5 Until such time as the Trustee is able to take control of the capital sum and to deal with same in terms of the Trust deed the plaintiff's attorney is authorized and ordered to:

1.5.5.1 Invest the capital amount in an interest-bearing account in terms of section 78(2A) of the Attorneys Act, 1979 to the benefit of the minor, with a registered banking institution pending finalization of the directives referred to in paragraph 1.5.1 above;

1.5.5.2 make any reasonable payment to satisfy any of the needs of the minor that may arise in the interim and that may relate to the reasonable need for care at this stage at least an advance in the amount of R 150 000 (One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Rand), to T N once the capital amount is paid by the Defendant.

1.6 The defendant is liable for payment of 100% of the reasonable costs of the trustee appointed in terms of paragraph 1.5.1 and paragraph 1.5.3 hereof, in respect of:

1.6.1 The establishing and administering of the Trust referred to in paragraph 1.5.1 above, up to the maximum prescribed in terms of the Trust Property Control Act 57 of 1988 or as indicated in the curator's report.

1.6.2 The monthly premium that is payable in respect of the insurance cover which is to be taken out by the trustee to serve as security in terms of the Trust Deed.

1.6.3 All costs shall be limited to payment of the reasonable costs which the defendant would have had to pay regarding appointment remuneration and disbursements had the Trustee been appointed as Curator Bonis.

1.6.4 The costs associated with the yearly audit of the Trust by a Charted Accountant as determined in the Trust Deed.

1.7 The Defendant shall pay the plaintiff taxed or agreed costs on the High Court scale as between party and party which costs shall include, but not be limited to:

1.7.1 The costs of obtaining the expert reports including any addendum reports and joint minutes under listed herein:

1.7.1.1 Report by Dr R. Naicker-Medical Practitioner.

1.7.1.2 RAF4 Form completed by Dr R Naicker-Medical Practitioner.

1.7.1.3 Report by Dr S.K. Mafeelane Orthopaedic Surgeon.

1.7.1.4 RAF 4 Form completed by Dr S.K Mafeelane -Orthopaedic Surgeon.

1.7.1.5 Report by Dr T.P Moja - Neurosurgeon.

1.7.1.6 RAF 4 Form completed by Dr T.P Moja - Neurosurgeon.

1.7.1.7 Report by Dr Mkhabele & lndunah - Radiologist.

1.7.1.8 Report by Dr Nyameka Mankai - Educational Psychologist.

1.7.1.9 Report by Dr Selahle - Plactic and Reconstructive Surgeon.

1.7.1.10 Report by Ms A. Phasha - Occupational therapist.

1.7.1.11 Addendum report by Ms A. Phasha - Occupational Therapist.

1.7.1.12 Report by DC Jooste - Industrial Psychologist.

1.7.1.13 Actuarial calculations by Johan Potgieter.

1.7.1.14 Joint minutes prepared by the following experts:

1.7.14.1 Orthopaedic Surgeon.

1.7.14.2 Neurosurgeon.

1.7.14.3 Clinical Psychologists

1.7.14.4 Occupational Therapist

1.7.14.5 Industrial Psychologist

1.17.14.6 Actuarial calculations based on Joint Minutes.

1.7.2 The costs of making 6 trial bundles as contained in the pre-trial minutes.

1.7.3 Costs of senior-junior counsel for attending pre-trial consultation with attorney and client up to and including the 13th day of March 2019.

1.7.4 All costs of associated with the appointment of the curator ad litem from date of appointment up until 13th day of March 2019.

1.8 In the event that the amount in respect of costs is not agreed upon, then:

1.8.1 The plaintiff shall serve the notice of taxation on the defendant's attorneys of record, and;

1.8.2 The plaintiff shall allow the defendant 14 (fourteen) court days to make payment of the taxed costs.

1.9 There is a Contingency Fee agreement concluded between the plaintiff and the plaintiff's attorney of record which agreement complies with the provisions of section 4(1) and 4(2) of the Contingency Fee Act, Act No 66 of 1997. The said agreement and affidavits were handed into court and marked as exhibits before the Court.

1.10 The issue of General Damages is postponed sine die.

 

 

___________________

C.J. COLLIS

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF

SOUTH AFRICA

 

 

Appearances as follows:

Counsel for the Plaintiff                 : Adv. G M Mashaba

Attorney for the Plaintiff                 : H.C Madike Attorneys

Curator ad Litem                           : Adv. P R Sekhukhune

Counsel for the Defendant            : Adv. J Hlongwane

Attorney for the Defendant           : Diale Mogashoa Attorneys

Date of Hearing                            : 13 March 2019

Heads of Argument                      : 22 March 2019

Date of Judgement                      : 07 October 2019

---