---

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 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE HIGH COURTOF SOUTH AFRICA

(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)

 

(1)     REPORTABLE: NO

(2)     OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: N O

(3)      REVISED.

 

CASE NO: 88060/2015

1/9/2019

 

P J RADEMAN                                                                                            PLAINTIFF

 

And

 
THE ROAD ACCIDENT FUND                                                                 DEFENDANT

 
JUDGEMENT

N V KHUMALO J

[1]        This is an action instituted by Mr P J Rademan ("Rademan"), the Plaintiff, against, the Road Accident Fund ("the Fund"} ("the Defendant"), as the statutory insurer responsible in terms of s 17 of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 ("the RAF Act"), as amended, for compensation for damages suffered due to personal injuries sustained in a motor collision accident.

[2]        Rademan was a driver of a motor vehicle with registration number [….] when it collided with a motor vehicle with registration numbers [….] driven by Mr PK Lekalakala (hereinafter referred to as the insured driver) on 2 July 2012 along the R59 Parys Sasolburg Road.

[3]        As a result of the motor collision, Rademan sustained injuries which in the particulars of claim are stated as; the right metacarpal fracture, head/brain injuries and left occipital haematoma, right orbital fracture and right maxilla fracture. The CT brain scan is said to have shown a left occipital contusion, right orbital fractures and right maxilla fracture.

[4]        Subsequent to sustaining injuries Rademan was admitted at a Vereeniging Hospital where he received medical treatment and underwent physiotherapy. It is averred in his particulars of claim that he experienced pain, discomfort and suffering which he will continue to experience in the future as well as suffer emotional shock and trauma including loss of joy and enjoyment of life and will also continue in the future to do so.

[5]        As a consequence of the aforesaid collision and the injuries he sustained, its alleged that Rademan suffered damages in the amount of R2 850 000.00 constituted as follows:

 

[5.1]	Past medical and hospital expenses	R200000.00
[5.2]	Future Medical and hospital expenses	R150 000.00
[5.3]	Estimated future loss of earnings	R1 500 000.00
[5.4]	Past loss of earnings	R300 000.00
[5.5]	General Damages	R700 000.00

 

[6]          Although the Fund entered an appearance to defend and denied any liability in its plea, I was informed at the beginning of the hearing of the trial that the merits have been settled on the basis that the Fund accepted 100% liability for payment of Rademan's proven or agreed damages. The Fund has also settled the future medical and hospital expenses claim by issuing a section 17 (4) RAF Act certificate. The only aspect of damages that was still to be adjudicated upon was in respect of loss of earnings, as well as general damages.

[7]          The RAF 4 Form was completed by Dr C Moare indicating that the Plaintiff's whole impairment was calculated to be at 21% or more. The Plaintiff holds a Master's degree in reproductive physiology. At the time of accident he was self- employed as an owner of water and farming businesses, which he continues to do as his livelihood.

[8]          No viva voce evidence was led. The parties agreed that they will argue with reference to the contents of the various reports filed by their experts, collateral information, clinical findings and opinions which will be placed as sequelae evidence before the court and shall contribute as prima facie evidence of such fact, which if of issue were to revert to parties to disprove same. The experts are however agreed on most of the injuries sustained but differ on their opinion on the severity and the consequences of the respective injuries. The aspect has been addressed by the parties in their heads of argument. There are also joint minutes that have been submitted by the parties' experts upon which the parties have also based their arguments from the bar. I was advised that at the time of preparation of their heads of argument the minutes were not available.

[9]        Mr Van der Merwe appeared on behalf of Rademan and Ms. Netshiozwi for the Fund. Mr Van der Merwe presented the sequelae of the injuries as follows:

On the right metacarpal fracture injury

[9.1]     He argued that to be as set out in a report by Dr Mare, the only Orthopaedic Surgeon who has filed a report in that regard. Dr Mare has indicated that Rademan's right hand healed well and he does not experience any further problems as a result of this injury, nor does he require any surgery. Rademan's ability to manage and conduct his farming or other enterprises was not affected by the injury and will not be affected in future. Or Mare also points out that although Rademan presented a left knee injury as well he did not treat him for that injury and that a knee replacement was attended to by Dr Oosthuizen whose report Rademan indicated not to form part of the bundle.

 

Head/Brain injury

[9.2]     Or Kruger, a Neurosurgeon has identified a left occipital heamotoma, a pneumocranium, a fractured cribriforma plate on the right, multiple facial bone fractures, a zygoma fracture on the right and a blowout fracture of the orbit on the right. He considered the injury a moderately severe closed head injury with focal brain injuries and a possible base of skull fracture.

[9.3]     He identified a 5% chance of Rademan developing epilepsy in future and a double vision which he attributed this to the previous blowout fracture. He also identified a loss of smell and a lack of taste and attributed this to the base skull fracture, involving the cribriforma plate.

[9.4]     In Kruger's opinion Rademan had acute, severe pain for a period of two weeks after the accident, thereafter Rademan had headaches, facial pain and lumbar back pain for approximately six months. Rademan still suffers from headaches and regular lumbar pains which has become chronic.

[9.5]     The Fund's Neurosurgeon Or Mazwai only identified the same symptom but diagnosed the head related injury only as a severe head injury compared to Kruger's moderately severe closed head injury. Dr Smuts a Neurologist, is more aligned to Kruger by describing the head injury as significant with an associated moderate brain injury.

 

Psychiatric Impact of the head injuries

[9.6]     Or Fine who is Rademan's Psychiatrist, has noted in his report that Rademan having sustained a head injury presents with significant organic brain damage with signs of residual neurological damage. He has ongoing difficulties in memory, mood and personality and has features of depression. He will require long term ongoing psychiatric treatment.

[9.7]     He points out that the Fund's clinical psychologist, Or Peta has recorded that she has found evidence of clinical depression and categorized Rademan as "severely depressed," suffering from a major depressive disorder systems. She also found that Rademan suffers from loss of energy and fatigue, experiences feelings of worthlessness, has a negative self-image and is self- conscious. In addition has high anxiety levels, isolates himself, becomes irritable more frequently and experiences regular anger outbursts.

[9.8]     Or Peta diagnosed Rademan with a mild concussive head injury which resulted in neurocognitive and psycho-organic changes post- accident and concludes that Rademan will not be able to fully function in the same manner he would have done had the accident not occurred.

 

10.       Ms. Netshiozwi for the Fund argued that due to what has been reported by Or Kruger and Mazwai referring to Rademan's injuries as severe and moderately severe with significant consequences and implications, the court must accept the injuries to have been moderate severe to severe. Together with the metacarpal injury to the right hand they caused acute, severe pain for a period of 2 weeks, regular and fairly severe pain for a further period of six weeks and thereafter chronic pain.

[11]      Furthermore she emphatically noted that Or Mare recorded that there was no surgical intervention, only conservative treatment and the accident did not influence Rademan's ability to continue with his job from a physical perspective.

[12]       In addition noted that Dr Mazwi also reported of a memory disturbance resultant from the severe head injury Rademan sustained, visual problem, right maxilla fracture and left hearing loss which might have existed prior the incident. The risk of epilepsy was recorded to be at 5-8% risk, which Dr Kruger noted at 5%. Dr Kruger had noted that Rademan sustained a moderately severe with focal brain injuries and a possible base fracture.

[13]       On the other hand Dr Smuts was of the opinion that Rademan suffered a significant head injury with associated moderate brain injury. Or Peta was of the opinion that Rademan represents with neuropsychological profile of a person who has sustained a mild

concussive brain injury. Whilst according to the Psychiatrist, Fine, Rademan has features of depression.

[14]      On the joint minutes not much of a difference is expounded by the Occupational Therapists. They agree on the impaired physical, cognitive and psychosocial work ability post-accident and about his limited employment prospects which would be of no consideration since Rademan conducts his own business. The disability management treatment recommended.

 

On Special Damages

[15]      Mr Van der Merwe referred to several cases he regarded as comparable, that of claimants who presented head injuries either of a moderate degree or a severe brain damage that was coupled with other severe injuries. In Hall v RAF 2013 (6J2) QOD 126 (SGJ) the claimant suffered fractured ribs, sixth cranial nerve lesion and soft tissue spinal injuries of the neck and back. The general damages awarded were R700 000.000 and R985 000.00 in current value; In Hurter v RAF 201 (6) QOD A4-12 (ECP) the injuries sustained were extensive facial fracturing, lacerations to the face, injuries to the chest, neck and abdomen, back and limbs as well as severe diffuse axonal injury to the brain which included a brain contusion and a fracture base of the skull. The award granted was R500 000.00 which in current value is approximately R800 000.00. In Mahale v RAF 2015 (7A4) QOD 15 (GNP) the injuries were insignificant with bruises to her scalp, face and a concussive head injury. The severity of the head was graded as minor by one Doctor and as moderate by another. All experts agreed that plaintiff suffered from post- traumatic headaches and generalised pain related to her neck and back injuries with a slightly increased risk of developing epilepsy and was awarded R520 000.00 which is R650 000.00 in current value. In Dlamini v Road Accident Fund 2015 (7A4) QOD 15 (GNP) the Plaintiff suffered a brain injury diagnosed as severe, a fractured mandible, loss of teeth and soft tissue injuries to the cervical and lumbar spine. He had an increased risk of developing seizures and his personality undergone changes as a result not suitable for employment in the open market. An award of R850 000.00 in respect of general damages granted, which is R1 250 000.00 in today's terms. Lastly in Torres v Raad Accident Fund from Corbett & Honey Vol 6A4-l , the Plaintiff suffered a severe diffuse brain injury and soft tissue injuries to the neck, face and chin in a motor vehicle accident. The head injury resulted in significant neurocognitive and neuro-behavioral deficits associated with concentration, working memory, impulse control and abstract reasoning. It also resulted in depression and adjustment disorder. An award of R600 000.000 was granted which is in current value an amount of R1050 000.00.

[16]      The argument on behalf of Rademan was therefore for the court to grant him an award of an amount of between R900 000.00 and R1 050 000.00

[17]      Ms. Netshiozwi referred to the case of Mngomezulu v Road Accident Fund 2011 ZAGPH ZAC at [107) where an administrative clerk sustained a moderate head injury, classified as diffuse moderate to severe traumatic brain injury that has led to neuro cognitive difficulties and neuro- behavioral problems. He also had a compound tibia­ fracture closed chest injury with long contusion. She argued that the injuries in Mngomezulu were more severe and the court awarded an amount of RGOO 000.00, which in current value is R885 000.00. Netshiozwi argued that in casu, an amount of R750 000.00 to R800 000.000would be fair and reasonable.

[18]      It is trite that in establishing the general damages the court is required to exercise a wide discretion in order to make out what is a fair and reasonable award that will adequately compensate the claimant for the pain and suffering and loss of amenities, having regard to all the relevant facts and circumstances connected with him or her, as well as the nature of the injuries sustained, the possible permanence thereof, the severity and the impact on the claimant's lifestyle; see Van Dyk v Road Accident Fund [22] and (23.

[19]      In light hereof a court is potentially in a very difficult position regarding the calculation and determination of such a fair and reasonable award when no evidence is led by or on behalf of the Plaintiff pertaining to the actual suffering, pain, disfigurement or loss of amenities, illustrating how the sequelae of the injuries have impacted on his or her lifestyle ; see Sigoumay v Gil/banks 1960 (2) SA 552 (A) at 571. The subjective and actual experience of the claimant being of paramount importance when the claim is quantified (Visser and Potgieter Law of Damages supra par 15.2.4.1.

[20]      This accelerated shortcut of getting through the trial has become an accepted norm with the legal representatives merely arguing the issue of general damages and loss of earnings reliant on the contents of the various medico-legal reports commissioned on behalf of the parties and joint minutes compiled by the corresponding experts. The issues are no longer determined from tested evidence which undoubtedly creates an opportunity of spurious claims proceeding undetected. If any of the issues remain in dispute I don't understand why no oral evidence, particularly that of the claimant should not be led instead of determining the matter on hearsay evidence.

[21]      The court in this instance has only the hearsay evidence of the experts who confirm that they have been informed of the facts by the Plaintiff. I agree with Van der Schyff AJ in Makhubele v Road Accident Fund (77208/2014) [2017] ZAGPPHC 805 (23 November 2017 when she stated that "I am not convinced that this is an acceptable way of dealing with claims of non-pecuniary nature. The court is basically forced to revert solely to previous awards made in more or less similar matters when exercising its discretion since Plaintiffs very personal experience of pain and suffering or loss of amenities of life cannot be discounted." Awards made in past comparable cases, for all purposes can only afford a broad and general guideline in view of the differences that inevitably arise in each case.

[22]      In cosu there is no personal detailing of the exact inhibitions Rademan might be experiencing in his lifestyle as a direct result of the specified injuries he suffered. Prominently highlighted factors by the expert evidence are features of depression that Rademan was suffering from that would require long term ongoing psychiatric treatment. The loss of energy and fatigue, his experiences of feelings of worthlessness, which has a negative self-image and is self- conscious, which are underlying effects of depression. Dr Peta's outlook that due to Rademan's neurocognitive and psycho-organic changes post­ accident he will not be able to fully function in the same manner he would have done had the accident not occurred, minus albeit stating what exact functions would be inhibited. Also reference to his low self-esteem made and that he may never be in a position to fully recover from his then current emotional state. Even though a benefit from psychotherapeutic intervention considered possible. Dr Kruger identified a loss of smell and a lack of taste. Chronic headaches (three times a week) and lumbar back pains that are aggravated by physical activity were identified. On the other hand Dr Mare's indicated that the accident did not influence Rademan's ability from a physical perspective. He was able to continue with his job.

[23]      Having taken all the mentioned factors into consideration, that is the nature, extent, consequences of the injuries, mostly its impact on the Plaintiff's life and the awards made previously in nearly analogous circumstances, especially in Mohale and Hall being much more nearly comparable, I am of the view that a fair and reasonable award in casu would be an amount of RBOO 000.00.

 

Loss of earning capacity

[24]      The primary object in respect of this claim is to restore the Plaintiff's patrimony, and, as far as possible , to place the Plaintiff in a position he or she would have been, had the delict not been committed: see Standard General Insurance Co Ltd v Dugmore 1996 (1) SA 33 (A) 41[1996] ZASCA 89; , 1996 4 All SA 415 (A) 418. Therefore in considering whether the Plaintiff is entitled to be compensated for a past loss of income, actual pecuniary loss of earnings is what is referred to. The question of him making an income or receiving a salary or any earnings during his absence at work is as a result significant. The amount awarded therefore must do justice to the parties, and must reflect the interest of both the Plaintiff and the Defendant. As the compensation is in relation to an inability/disability to have made an income or earned the salary, one must ascertain whether any loss has in fact been suffered; see Rudman v Road Accident Fund [2002) 4 All SA 422 (SCA), 2003 (2) SA 234 (SCA). In reference to Voet (9.2.16) this statement on loss of income was made that:

"Where damages have to be compensated, only direct loss is taken into consideration, and not damages flowing from a new supervening cause, even though the direct loss permitted such new loss to operate.

 

[25]      As set out in Southern Insurance Ass Ltd v Bailey 1984 (1) SA 98 (A) at 113-114 and confirmed in Road Accident Fund v Guedes 2006 (5} SA 583 (SCA) at 586, there are two methods employed by courts when a claimant's loss of earning capacity is assessed. The first approach is for 'the Judge to make a round estimate of an amount which seems to him to be fair and reasonable. This is entirely a matter of guesswork, a blind plunge into the unknown'. The second approach is 'to try to make an assessment, by way of mathematical calculations, on the basis of assumptions resting on the evidence. The validity of this approach depends of course upon the soundness of the assumptions, and these may vary from the strongly probable to the speculative'.

[26] Corbett and Buchanan (Corbett MM, Buchanan JL & Gauntlett JJ The Quantum of Damages in Bodily and Fatal Injury Cases {General Principles) 3ed Juta, 1 48) provides a basic formula to assess loss of earning capacity: '(a} calculate the present value of the future income which the plaintiff would have earned but for his or her injuries and consequent disability; (b) calculate the present value of the plaintiff's income, if any, having regard to his or her injuries and disabilities; (c) subtract the figure obtained in (b) from the figure obtained in (a); adjust the figure obtained as a result of this subtraction in light of all relevant factors and contingencies.'

[27]      It has been stated in Pierre v Road Accident Fund (44981/2013) [2015] ZAGPJHC 159 (11 June 2015) that: 'When a court is called upon to exercise an arbitrary discretion that is largely based on speculated facts it must do so with necessary circumspection. In the absence of contrary evidence, the court can assume that a reasonable person in the position of the plaintiff would have succeeded to minimize the adverse hazards of life rather than to accept them. Both favourable and adverse contingencies have to be taken into account in determining an appropriate contingency deduction. Bearing in mind that contingencies are not always adverse, the court should in exercising its discretion lean in favour of the plaintiff as he would not have been placed in the position where his income would have to be the subject of speculation if the accident had not occurred .

[28]      Contingencies are to be applied as an important control mechanism whether negative or positive to adjust the loss suffered to the circumstances of the individual case in order to achieve equity and fairness to the parties. In accordance to Koch in the Quantum Year Book (2011) at 104: general contingencies cover a wide range of considerations which may vary from case to case and may include: taxation, early death, saved travel costs, loss of employment, promotion prospects, divorce, etc. There are no fixed rules as regards general contingencies living room for unforeseen contingencies, the list being endless, such as errors on estimation of future earnings and life expectancy, loss of earnings due to unemployment sickness, retirement and other hazards of life. In this matter factors external like the economy, competitors and internal, being management technical and legal were to be considered.

[29]      Significant when embarking on such an exercise in relation to Rademan is that considering all the injuries he sustained, including the severe to moderate head injury and its sequelae, his ability to manage and conduct his farming or other enterprises was according to Dr Mare not affected by the injury and will not be affected in the near future. He holds a Master's degree in reproductive physiology. At the time of accident he was self- employed as an owner of water and farming businesses, which he had continued to do as his livelihood. Even though he has been said to still suffer from headaches and regular lumbar pains which has become chronic pain. Mrs Van der Walt has indicated that the Plaintiff has a good support structure within what seems to be solid for business. On the basis of these structures and stable business he would be able to continue working until retirement age and possibly even thereafter.

[30]      On behalf of the Fund, Ms Netshiozwi pointed out that the report of the Industrial Psychologist indicate that there has been an increase in the Plaintiff's business turnover over the years. Following the accident Rademan resumed work after 2 weeks for which period he was generating an income through his son who was running the business whilst he was recuperating. Since also from the documents before court there is no indication to indicate that the 'Rademan's business has been affected financially, it is therefore upon the Plaintiff to prove that he suffered a loss of earnings.

[31] Ms Netshiozwi argued with reference to the court's decision in the matter of Dippenaar v Shield Insurance Co Ltd (no citation) that "in our law, the Defendant must make good difference between the value of the Plaintiff's estate after the commission of the delict and the value of the estate if the delict had not been committed, as capacity to earn money considered to be part of a person's estate and the loss or impairment of that capacity constituted a loss, if such loss diminishes the estate." On that note Ms Netshiozwi argued for the dismissal of Rademan claim for loss of earnings on the basis that he failed to prove that he suffered and will continue to suffer such damages. Alternatively that contingencies be applied to cater for any unforeseen circumstances that may arise and affect the wellbeing of the business in the future applying a contingency of 10% pre-morbid earnings and 30 % on post- morbid earnings using the actuarial amounts.

[32]      Mr Van der Merwe has countered the Fund's argument by referring to Dr Kotze's report particularly the note that after Rademan's absence for two weeks and thereafter due to personality changes and mood swings, unable to conduct his business in an acceptable manner as a result of which his business suffered losses for a period of six months. The family was therefore agreed that the Plaintiff's son, a chartered accountant would assist on an ad hoc basis and an additional employee would be appointed. Upon which she recommends that the additional expenditure for the remuneration of employees and of Rademan's son be compensated by the Defendant. He disputes that Dr Kheswa could give an opinion since she said she could not read Rademan's financials due to the language used. According to him the fact that the business was still operational does not mean that no losses were suffered

[33]      The Plaintiff carries an onus to prove such a loss.

[34]      The calculations of Prima Actuaries of past and future loss based on the recommendation by Kotze, the only actuarial experts to file a report were preferred by Rademan whereupon the total calculated capitalised value of loss of earnings is in the amount of R1 357 406.00.

[35]      Dr Kheswa has noted that the accident has not rendered the Plaintiff unemployable but has reduced his competitiveness in the open labour market. Also that notwithstanding that this accident has brought with it some physical sequelae that could have disadvantaged him in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and productivity as compared to his uninjured counterparts, the effect of degeneration as one gets older cannot be ignored. The IP therefore was of the opinion that Rademan will not be able to manage his business on par with the pre-accident levels and suggested assistance in terms of additional employee/s to enable him to sustain the growth of his business. Kheswa considered Mahlokomeng's opinion that considering his cognitive limitations he will require assistance in managing and carrying out the administrative task of the company due to his poor memory and concentration.

[36]       Furthermore Kheswa considered Rademan at time of accident to have reached the plateau of his career with not much transformation expected in terms of career development and earning prospects. He consequently was of the view that he could have continued earning at his pre-accident capacity till retirement. It was suggested that his validated earnings at the time of the accident be used for calculations purposes.

[37]       Taking into account what has been presented by both Counsel I have also from all the reports including that of Dr Kheswa and Dr Kotze noted the mentioning of an increase in taxable income from 2011until 2012. The acclaimed decline in 2013 and again the increase in 2014, 2015 and 2016 up to 3 times of the taxable income realized in 2011. The loss post­ accident is attributed by Rademan to impulsive decision he made that adversely impacted on the business. He said he ordered substandard bottles and as a result lost goodwill from some of his old clients and business which resulted in a decrease in turnover. The assistance by his son was not on a full time basis but through or via team viewer two (2) times a week, and a yearly visit to the business to ensure that the financials are up in order. So the B Com degree person suggested did not have to be full time at the business if he was to be employed. An assistant has already been employed post-accident with various tasks. A serious increase in turnover has since followed till 2015 after which 2016 was exceptionally a good year. Kotze accepted that but for the accident the business would have continued to grow commensurate with the average annual increases as per the available pre and post­ accident financial statements excluding 2013. It is also accepted that his personal income drawn from the business would also have increased accordingly. lt is a fact that it has increased steadily as contemplated.

[38]      The Plaintiff is the master of his business, he does not have to retire at a certain age but would have been able to continue as it is the case, until age 65-70. He initially worked at his father's farm before he started his own business. Kotze incorrectly states that he was self- employed since 1985. It was only in 2000 that he became self- employed. He had managed so far to run a stable and profitable business. He is regarded to be working at a protected environment.

[39]      Under the circumstances the court finds that Plaintiff did not suffer a loss of income or shortfall during his 2 week away from the business, except for the R20 000 expenses he had to pay his son for taking care of the business during that time. ln Van Heerden v African Guarantee & Indemnity Co Ltd 1951 (3) (CPD) 730, it was considered that as the payment was made as wages and was not due to the supervening of a new cause, such as charity, that Plaintiff did not suffer a loss of income and could not recover the amount claimed." He still received an income.

[40]      It is trite law that an award of damages for the loss of a claimant's earnings or earning capacity is intended to place him in the financial position he would have been in, had it not been for the delict, to allow him to enjoy financial benefits equal to the quantum of the earnings potentially to be lost by him. Taking all the aforementioned circumstances of the Plaintiff as narrated in the medical specialists reports, especially the issue of his actual past loss of earnings I am of the opinion that using the calculations of the actuary, the calculation on his past loss of earnings would be disregarded and those of future loss of earnings a contingency of 20 % and 30% would be applicable as have been applied on the gross amounts as per the Prima Actuarial calculations of which the total of R 1116 179 000.00 is considered fair and reasonable, with no amount payable for past loss of earnings.

[41]      It is therefore ordered, that:

1.            The Defendant is to pay to the Plaintiff a sum of R800 000.00 (Eight Hundrend Thousand Rand) for general damages.

2.            The Defendant is to pay the sum of R1 116179.00 (One Million One Hundrend and Sixteen Thousand One Hundrend and Seventy Nine Rand) to the Plaintiff for loss of earnings.

3.            Interest on the capital amounts calculated at the rate of 15.5% per annum to be payable on failure by the Defendant to make payment within 14 (fourteen) days of the date of this order.

4.            The Defendant to pay the Plaintiff's costs of suit to date on a party and party scale.

5.            The Defendant is ordered to deliver to Plaintiff, within reasonable time, an undertaking in terms of Section 17(4Ha) of the Road Accident Fund Act, Act 56 of 1996, wherein the Defendant undertakes to pay to the Plaintiff 100% of the cost of future.

 

 

N V KHUMALO J

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

 

 

On behalf of Plaintiff:                   J G VAN DER MERWE

Instructed by                                  J A VENTER ATTORNEYS

 

On behalf of Defendant:               ADVT E NETSHIOZWI

Instructed by :                               TSEBANE MOLOBA ATTORNEYS

---