P.E.M obo Minor Child v Road Accident Fund (731/2019) [2025] ZAMPMHC 14 (11 March 2025) (2025)

IN THE HIGH COURT OFSOUTH AFRICA

MPUMALANGA DIVISION-MIDDEBURG [LOCAL SEAT]

CASE NO: 731/2019

(1)REPORTABLE: YES/NO

(2)OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: YES/NO

(3)REVISED.

DATE:11/03/2025

SIGNATURE:

Inthe matter between:-

P[...]E[...] M[...]

OBOMINORCHILDPLAINTIFF

And

ROADACCIDENTFUNDDEFENDANT

JUDGMENT

VUKEYAJ

[1] The plaintiff instituted action against the Road Accident Fund (theFund) on a representativecapacity as the natural guardian of theminor child A[...] P[…] M[...]. The action is for damages forthe injuries sustainedby the minor child on 26 July 2018 when shewas involved in a motor vehicle accident where she was a pedestrian.

[2] This accident happened at Cowen Ntuli Street in Middelburg when thechild collided witha motor vehicle bearing registration numbers andplates F[…] driven by the insured driver. It has been concededthat theinsured driver failed to keep a proper lookout; drove at anexcessive speed; failed to keep the vehicle he was driving underproperor effective control.

[3] The child sustained a severe traumatic brain injury; diffuse braininjury Grade 3; anda right ankle fracture dislocation as a result ofthe accident. After the accident the child was taken to MiddelburgHospital fortreatment. The plaintiff now claims against the Fund forfuture medical expenses and has prayed that the court orders the Fundto give her an undertaking in terms of Rule 17 (4) (a). The plaintiffalso claims for general damages and loss of earnings.

[4] Merits were settled and conceded by the respondent 100% in favour ofthe plaintiff. Theonly issues remaining for determination by thecourt, is the issue of future medical expenses, a reasonable amountfor generaldamages and loss of earnings.

[5] At the beginning of the trial, the plaintiff brought an applicationin terms of Rule 38(2) to admit the affidavits of the followingexperts into evidence without them tendering viva voce evidence. Thedefendant didnot oppose the application and it was granted by thecourt. These experts are:

5.1. Dr PM Mpanza – Neurosurgeon

5.2. Dr Daniel Qubu – Urologist

5.3. Dr MR Mudau – Neurologist

5.4. Mr Samuel F Mphuthi – Clinical Psychologist

5.5. Mr Wim Loots – Actuary

The Evidence

[6] The evidence of these experts can be summarised as follows:

TheNeurologist – Dr Mpanza

[7] The expert states in his affidavit that he assessed the minor childon 21 January 2020in order to provide his expert opinion on thesequelae of the injuries sustained from the motor vehicle accident.As the sourcesof information, the doctor had at his disposalhospital records, the RAF1 form, the identity document and aninstruction letter.

[8] It was reported that the child lost consciousness during the accidentand woke up at thehospital. She was resuscitated at the scenefollowing a cardiorespiratory arrest and then she was taken toMiddelburg Hospitalfor treatment. She was admitted at ICU and latertaken to Witbank Hospital for a follow up. The minor child sustaineda severetraumatic brain injury; diffuse brain injury Grade 3 and aright ankle fracture dislocation.

[9] According to Dr Mpanza, the minor child complained of headaches atleast 4-5 times a week(relieved by analgesia), aggressive behaviour,pain where she was sutured. She complained of pain in the eyes and adecreased visionof the left eye. Easy fatigability of the upperlimbs, left knee pain and swelling and poor school performance werealso amongstthe things she complained about.

[10] Dr Mpanza confirmed that the child sustained a severe traumatic braininjury with loss of consciousnessof unknown duration. A CTbrain scan revealed a grade 3 diffuse axonal injury, a cerebralcontusion and intraventricularhaemorrhage. The EMS Glasgow comascale dropped from 5/15 to 3/10 intubated and ventilated. The doctordeferred to an ophthalmologistfor the painful right eye and the poorvision. He also deferred to an Orthopaedic surgeon 1for the rightankle fractured dislocation.

[11] It is the opinion of Dr Mpanza that the child suffered significantneurocognitive deficits with personalitychanges which might berelated to the severity of the accident. He then deferred forboth educational and clinical psychologistassessment. For theconstant headaches the doctor recommended that the provision ofanalgesia be made. According to the expert,the child’s risk ofpost traumatic epilepsy is between 5 – 10 %.

[12] The expert opined that the child’s amenities and enjoyment oflife are negatively affected by theheadache. He further opined thatthe brain with its neurocognitive sequelae negatively impacted on hereducation which might affectfuture employment and activity of dailyliving. He estimated the child’s combined whole personimpairment to 38% and he furtherconsidered the injuries suffered bythe minor child to be serious and therefore opined that she qualifiesfor General Damages.

TheUrologist – Dr Daniel Qubu

[13] Dr Qubu confirmed that he assessed the minor child on 9 March 2023 toprovide his expert opinion on thesequelae of the injuries shesustained as a result of the motor vehicle accident. He had at hisdisposal, an instruction letter,the RAF1 form and Hospital recordsfrom Middelburg Hospital. His evidence showed that the child wasadmitted to Middelburg Hospitalfor treatment from the 26 July 2018until she was discharged on 14 August 2018 (approximately 21 days).

[14]It was reported to the doctor by the child’s mother that shehad sustained a head injury,facial injuries and right lower limbinjury. She complained of lower urinary tract symptoms, as she hasnuctoria, an increasedfrequency to urinate and that has beenbothering her at school. She wakes up about two times a night to passurine. While she sufferedurgency incontinence and had a urinarycatheter while in hospital, at the time of the report it hadresolved. According to thedoctor, the child never had urinary tractinfections and had no blood in her urine. The child also complainedof poor vision, blockednostrils, sometimes she experiencednosebleeds, cough and chest pains and left lower limb pains.

[15] Records from Middelburg hospital and information from the RAF1,revealed that the child sustaineda severe head injury, diffuseaxonal brain injury, small intraventricular bleed, brainstemcontusion, facial injuries, lacerationon the forehead, left eyeswelling, bruises on the left cheek and blunt chest trauma –lung contusion. According to the doctor,the child suffered acutepain after the accident and now has chronic lower limb pains and abothersome storage LUTS, increasedfrequency, nocturia and urgency tourinate. She has problems with her eyes which are sometimes teary.

[16] The doctor opined that for urological problem he calculated thechild’s WPI at 5% and to arrive ata final WPI the 5% WPIshould be combined with WPI calculation by other experts. She willneed further treatment.

The Neurologist –Dr MR Mudau

[17] Dr Mudau confirmed the nature of the injuries sustained by the childand the treatment received as indicatedby other experts. He furtherconfirmed that the child sustained a severe diffuse injury and had tobe intubated. She opined thatthe child presented with change inpersonality and behaviour, a concentration and memory problem. Therewere signs of Post-TraumaticStress Disorder (PTSD). According to DrMudau the injuries resulted in mild cognitive difficulties with poorscholastic performance.He deferred the issue of cognitive impairmentto the Clinical Psychologist.

[18] The child also sustained a left eye injury resulting in reducedvisual acuity. Her risk of late post-traumaticepilepsy had increasedby 15%. Her loss of amenities of life had been affected as she wasunable to do heavy physical activities,unable to exercise and toplay sports. The expert opined that her neurological prognosis wasfair however, her productivity, employabilityand insurability hasbeen negatively affected due to the sequelae of the accident. Shewill become unemployable to the open labourmarket. She presentedwith moderate to severe post-traumatic headaches that are poorlycontrolled.

[19] The expert opined that it will be fair to award her adequatecompensation for the injuries incurred duringthe accident and thatshe qualifies for general damages. She further opined that she wouldneed further medical treatment.

The ClinicalPsychologist – Mr Samuel Mphuthi

[20] This witness stated in his report that he assessed the child forpurposes of providing his expert opinionon the sequelae of theinjuries. Before the assessment she considered the clinical report,the RAF1, RAF4 od Dr Segwapa, Dr Mpanza,Dr Ngcoya, the medico-legalreports of Dr Mpanza, Dr GF Mabasa the Orthopaedic Surgeon, Dr Mudauthe Neurologist, Dr Qubu the Urologist,Dr Kgole the Pulmonologistand Dr Dippenaar the Ophthalmic Sergeon.

[21] In his report, Mr Mphuthi confirmed the version of the child on howthe accident occurred, and confirmedthe nature of the injuriessustained as well as the treatment she received from the hospital. Itis the evidence of Mr Mphuthithat the child’s responses toReaction Time, Complex Attention and Cognitive Flexibility wereinvalid suggesting she haddifficulty understanding test instructionsfor the relevant domains. Her overall neuropsychological performancewas on low average,denoting mild neurocognitive impairment anddeficit.

[22] According to Mr Mphuthi, the child’s scores for memory domainssuggest that her pre-morbid scholasticaptitude was at least average,possibly above average, if verbal memory is applied as proxy forpre-morbid capacity. Thus the overallscore of low average issignificantly below her pre-accident capacity. It is the expertopinion of Mr Mphuthi that based on thehistory obtained anddocumentation reviewed, the child’s performance scatteredbetween average and way below average. Hefurther opined that thesescores can be attributed to neurocognitive deficits due to thetraumatic brain injury sustained, aggravatedby chronic pain andstress response interfering with the allocation of corticalresources.

[23] It was concluded that the traumatic brain injury that she sustainedresulted in neurocognitive deficitsespecially attention deficitswhich impact her ability to function both intellectually andsocially. Her age also rendered hervulnerable to greater falloutthan would have been the case had the same injury been sustainedbeyond the formative years. Herclinical psychological status ischaracterized by symptoms of post-traumatic stress mood dysregulationassociated with diminishedneurocognitive capacity as well aspersistent pain and changed social functioning.

[24] Mr Mphuthi opined that from a neuropsychological perspective, thechild’s pattern of performanceson cognitive testing and herclinical psychological profile indicate that she already performstasks at a slower pace than priorto the accident. She forgetsimportant details, requires more time to comprehend complex tasks andwill have difficulty managingher levels of frustration in thelearning environment. He deferred to the Educational Psychologistregarding her diminished prospectsof benefiting from mainstreameducation and her future learning needs and educational placement.

[25] The plaintiff called The Educational Psychologist, Ms NtombizethuZethu Gumede. She testified that she consultedwith the minor childto determine her intellectual status and cognitive functioning. Sheassessed the child and was able to formulatea report based on thisassessment conducted on the child. The results revealed that she wasaverage, intellectually. She saw thechild after the accident,however, the child is likely to have been above average before theaccident. Educationally, the childwould have coped with themainstream school system up to grade 12. She would have progressedand passed Grade 12 with a Bachelorendorsement and would haveacquired a University Degree. Had the accident not occurred,she would have been employable inthe open labour market as a skilledand professional person.

[26] After the accident, she displayed learning deficits that will alwaysimpact negatively on her classroomperformance. She performed belowaverage on the vocabulary subtest suggesting that her ability tolearn new information has beencompromised. She has reached grade 8post-injury but performed poorly on standardised tests of scholasticachievements in January2020. She opined that the deficits discoveredwere likely to affect her more severely with the passage of time athigher gradesin which greater demand is placed upon a learner’sabilities and independence.

[27] According to the expert, the child will not perform appropriately nowthat she has been injured and sheis not going to obtain what shewould have obtained had the accident not happened. In her first termof Grade 8 she failed Englishand performed below average. Takinginto account the severe traumatic brain injury sustained by thechild, it is probable thatshe has suffered a degree of IQdeterioration, as opined by Dr Mpanza. This witness opined that thechild will not progress tobe able to obtain a degree, and if thereare any such chances, they are minimal.

[28] The plaintiff also led the evidence of the Occupational Therapist, MsLebogang Kate Papo. The expert confirmedhaving consulted with theminor child and prepared a report. The assessment was done in orderto determine how the injuries sustainedby the child affected herindependent functional participation in school, her activities ofdaily living, social, leisure and work.When she did the assessment,she was in possession of the hospital records and reports from otherexperts as listed under paragraph3 of her report.

[29] Her evidence was that the child was 11years old at the time of theaccident and that she was in grade 3.When she did the assessment,the child was in Grade 8. She assessed the child’sneuro-cognitive abilities and her findingswere that she was slow inwriting, could not memorize global instructions and her overallcognitive ability was impaired. Generally,her cognitive perceptualcomponents yielded poor results although she managed to score withinnorms, especially with concrete activitiesshe will still strugglewith complex activities.

[30] The injuries on her hip had an impact on her gross motor activitiesand her functionality was compromised.As the EducationalPsychologists was of the opinion that the child would have problemswith learning impairments, and that herfuture academic progress wasimpaired as a result, therefore this will affect her occupationaltraining and earning potential.The Occupational therapist thereforeopined that the child would struggle to get employment taking intoconsideration the limitsshe has physically and cognitively resultingfrom her injuries.

[31] The expert opined that the child would not cope in the open labourmarket as she is already compromisedacademically. If she does notreach matric level, most of the jobs she will qualify for will beheavy. According to the expert,as an adult seeking employment, thechild should qualify for sedentary-light types of jobs with relevantaccommodation set in placetaking into consideration the physical,cognitive and psycho-emotional impairments. She will need asympathetic employer who willaccommodate her limitations. Without asympathetic employer, she will struggle to get employment as she isalready compromised.

[32] Pre-accident, it was reported to the witness that the child was an“A” learner as she was attaininglevel 7 symbols and hadnever repeated a grade. While post-accident, it was reported thatfollowing the accident she stayed homefor over a week and returnedto school while still recovering from the injuries. She used elbowcrutches for over 2 months at school.It was reported that shestruggled with her schoolwork post-accident and her performancedropped, although she passed fairly atthe end of the year. It wasfurther reported that since the accident, she was reluctant to do herschoolwork.

[33] The plaintiff also called the Industrial Psychologist, Ms TalifhaniNtsieni who consulted with andassessed the child to evaluate theextent and impact of the accident and related injuries on the child’sphysical and cognitivefunctioning. The main objective was to predicther educability, employment prospects and earning potential assumingthat the accidenthad not occurred and having regard to theconsequences of the accident.

[34] Having regard to the injuries and the findings by the EducationalPsychologist pre and post-accident, thewitness opined thatPre-morbid, the child would have entered the labour market as asemi-skilled worker, within the formal sectorAT Paterson B4/B5/C1level. She would have probably progressed up to Paterson D1/D2 medianquartile level, total package at theapproximate age of 45.Post-accident and having considered the reports of other experts, thewitness opined that the injuries sustainedby the child in theaccident have had a negative and restrictive impact on herphysiological, neurosurgical, neurological, ophthalmological,urological, cognitive, psychological, learning and occupationalfunctioning.

[35] It is the evidence of the Industrial Psychologist that thechild has sustained the nature of injuriesthat have compromised herhealth and therefore affecting her as indicated above. She is anunequal competitor in the open labourmarket compared with herhealthier peers and that she will not be able to perform functionsefficiently and effectively as comparedto her counterparts. It istherefore her opinion that the injuries sustained hinder the child’scareer and future employability.According to the expert, the childwill struggle to secure employment in the open labour market giventhe challenges, and thatshe will most likely remain unemployed. Shefurther opines that the child has suffered a medical justifiable lossof work capacitywhich translates into loss of earnings.

[36] The child’s mother, Ms P[...] M[...] also tendered evidence insupport of her claim and briefly statedthat before the accident thechild was performing good at school without any complaints onacademic performance. However, afterthe accident, things began tochange as she was called often at school. There were complaints thather academic performance hasdeclined. She testified that since theaccident, the child displays very strange behaviour and does notcomprehend instructionsof follow them. She always complains ofheadaches, forgetfulness tiredness and pain constantly.

General Damages

[37] Itis a trite principle that in claims for general damages, compensationis awarded for pain, suffering, discomfort, disablement,loss ofamenities of life and disfigurement, etc. resulting from the injuriessustained from the accident. The authorities havecautioned againstthe courts' tendency to award higher damages as compensation. Thereis no mathematical or scientific formulafor the computation of themonetary value of pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life anddisabilities. (See A.A.Mutual Insurance Limited v Maqula 1978(1)SA 801(A) and SouthernInsurance Association Limited v Bailey N.O1984(1) S.A.98(A)at 114).

[38] In assessing the compensatory award, the courtmust be fair to both sides, i.e. an award must be a justcompensationand must not “pour largesse from the horn of plenty at thedefendant's expense” as stated in DeJongh v Du Pisanie 2005(5) SA 457 (SCA).InHullyv Cox 1923A.D.234at246,thecourt cautioned the courts against allowing their "sympathy forthe claimants" to influence their judgments in consideringwhatcompensation to award in cases such as the present.

[39] Referring the Court to numerous cases relevant tothe one at hand, Counsel for the plaintiff, argued thatthecircumstances of the plaintiff warrant an award of general damages inthe amount of R2 000000,00. It is worth mentioning at this point that thedefendant has not made any submissions in relation to the issue ofgeneral damagesand the proposed award. Amongst the cases I wasreferred to by the plaintiff is the case of Megdalene NO v RoadAccident Fund 2006 (5A4) QOD 10 (W). In this case theplaintiff sustained a severe brain injury with diffuse and focalbrain damage in the form of subdural haematomaresulting in cognitiveimpairment. This impairment was characterized by poor verbal andvisual memory; poor concentration and distractibility;impairedexecutive function difficulties characterized by dysarthria and wordand word retrieval difficulties; bilateral hemiparesiswith severespasticity of all four limbs and left facial paralysis as well asasphasis. The plaintiff was confined to a wheelchair.He hadintelligence level of a young child. Although limited, still hadinsight into his predicament. An above average scholarbefore theaccident, who would probably have undergone tertiary education, leftwith severe permanent physical and mental disabilitiesrendered himunemployable. In current value the plaintiff was awarded R 2 142000.00.

[40] The plaintiff also referred the court to the case of Mohlaphuli NOv The South African National Road Agency Limited and Another 2013(6A4) QOD 146 (WCC) in which the plaintiff sustained severecranio-facial injuries with skull-base fracture, cerebro-spinal fluidleak, nasalfracture; injury to the left eye and optic nerve. He alsosuffered a severe traumatic brain injury with primary diffuse axonalinjury, complicated by focal (frontal cerebral laceration withprimary hemiparesis) and secondary (cerebral swelling) brain injury;and fracture of the right radiu. There was prolonged hospitalization.Decompressive craniotomy was carried out in hospital as aresult ofsevere progressive brain swelling and surgical repair of a largebrain laceration in the frontal lobes. There was disfigurementwithcranio-facial deformity; and combined neurological and psychologicalproblems with fatigue, memory, concentration, readingand writing,speech and executive functions. Major sustained changes inpersonality, mood and behaviour, having become short-temperedandaggressive with uncontrollable mood swings. He was renderedunemployable as a result of his injuries and in need of a full-timecareer. He was awarded R1448 000. 00 in current value.

[41] It is trite that past awards serve as a guide,each case is to be decided on its own merits (SeeProteaAssurance Co Ltd v Lamb 1971(1) SA 530(A)535H -536B). It is the evidence of the all the experts that thechild sustained a severe head injury, diffuse axonal brain injury,small intraventricular bleed, brainstem contusion, facialinjuries,laceration on the forehead, left eye swelling, bruises on the leftcheek and blunt chest trauma in a form of lung contusion.Accordingto doctor Mpanza, the child suffered acute pain after the accidentand now has chronic lower limb pains. The defendanthas not disputedthis evidence.

[42] Furthermore, the undisputed evidence of theplaintiff is that the child also sustained a left eye injuryresulting in reduced visual acuity. Her risk of late post-traumaticepilepsy had increased by 15%. Her loss of amenities of lifehavebeen affected as she was unable to do heavy physical activities,unable to exercise and to play sports. The child has beennegativelyaffected due to the sequelae of the accident. I agree with Dr Mudauthat it will be fair to award the child adequatecompensation for theinjuries incurred during the accident and that she indeed qualifiesfor general damages.

[43] The cases I have been referred to by Counsel forthe plaintiff are not on all fours with the case in consideration.Ihave noticed very material differences in terms of the injuriessustained more especially their severity. The injuries sustainedbythe plaintiff in casu may be severe but not as severe as thosesustained by the plaintiff’s in the quoted cases. It istherefore my submissionthat a fair and reasonable award for generaldamages in the circumstances of the plaintiff is R1000000.00.

Lossof Earnings

[44] InRAFv Guedes 2006(5) SA 583(SCA)atpara[8] the court stated that:

‘Itis trite that a person is entitled to be compensated to the extentthat the person’s patrimony has been diminished in consequenceof another’s negligence. . .The calculation of the quantum of afuture amount, such as loss of earning capacity, is not,as I havealready indicated, a matter of exact mathematical calculation. By itsnature such an enquiry is speculative and a courtcan therefore onlymake an estimate of the present value of the loss which is often arough estimate (see for example SouthernInsurance Association Ltd vBailey NO). The court necessarily exercises a wide discretion when itassesses the quantum of damagesdue to loss of earning capacity andhas a large discretion to award what it considers right.’

[45] InBanev D'Ambrosi(279/08)[2009]ZASCA 98(17September 2009) para 15 it was stated as follows:

“Whena court measures the loss of earning capacity, it invariably does soby assessing what the plaintiff would probably have earnedhad he notbeen injured and deducting from that figure the probable earnings inhis injured state (both figures having been properlyadjusted totheir 'present day values'). But in using this formulation as a basisof determining the loss of earning capacity,the court must take careto make its comparison of pre- and post-injury capacities against thesame background”.

[46] It is trite that the percentage of the contingencydeduction depends upon a number of factors and rangesbetween 5% and100%, depending upon the facts of the case. What is important to noteis the fact that the Court has a wide discretionthat must be basedupon a consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances.Justice and fairness to the parties is servedby contingencies to beapplied on the proven facts of the case. The discretion of the Courtmay not be usurped by the evidenceof the experts such as theactuary. The actuary’s evidence only serves as a useful basisfor establishing the quantum ofdamages.

[47] In a case as the one in consideration, it becomesnecessary to compare what the minor child would have earned‘butfor” the accident with what she would likely have earned afterthe incident. The future loss represents the differencebetween thepre-morbid and post-morbid figures after the application of theappropriate contingencies. According to Mr Wim Loots,the plaintiff’sloss had accident not occurred isR 14 397 733.00. The plaintiff suggested a contingency deduction of25%, resulting in Loss of earningsin the amount of R10 798 300.00and a Capped Loss of earnings in the amount of R10 484 950.00.

[48] It is the plaintiff’s submission that theabove scenario is reasonable and supported by the factsand evidence.According to Counsel for the plaintiff, having regard to the minorchild’s scholastic history there is no objectiveevidence thather academics were at risk before the accident. She is a candidatewho always performed well academically beforethe accident;therefore, chances of her dropping out of school were non-existent.The suggested contingencies, according to theplaintiff, are in linewith opinion of the Industrial Psychologists.

[49] Counsel for the defendant held a different view onthe issue of contingencies to be applied. She contendedthat a higherthan normal contingency deduction be applied because the minor childhas been progressing well academically evenafter the accident. Shewas in Grade 3 when the collision occurred. Post-accident, she is inGrade 9, and has not repeated a grade.Counsel suggested acontingency deduction of 75% and relied on the case of Hlalele oboHlalele v Road Accident Fund (41304/2013)[2015] ZAGPJHC 54 wherethe court remarked as follows:

“Notwithstandingthat the future remains unpredictable, the court is still required tocalculate and award the compensation basedon the unknown future inrespect of the lives which may or may not be lived, in respect ofdisabilities which may or may not eventuateor persist or damageswhich may or may not eventuate”.

[50] The plaintiff in casu stayed away fromschool for about two weeks, attended school in crutches and returnedto school while recovering. Although herperformance had dropped, itmust have dropped slightly because she passed that academic year. Iam of the view that, after havingconsidered all the evidence placedbefore me, most importantly that the child was not rendered totallyincapable of earning a livingand that she has been progressingfairly academically after the accident, a contingency deduction of60% is to be applied. Theamount of R14397733 afterapplying the contingency, therefore translates to R5759.093.20for loss of earningsfor the minor. It is my respectful view thatthis amount is fair and reasonable.

Futuremedical hospital and related expenses

[51] Plaintiff in this regard seeks a full undertakingin terms of the Provisions ofSection17(4)(a)oftheRoadAccident Fund Act 56 of 1996whichI am in agreement with.

[52] In the result, I make the following order:

52.1.Merits are settled 100%in favor of the Plaintiff.

52.2.The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff thesum of R6759093.20(Six Million Seven Hundred and Fifty Nine Thousand Ninety Three Randand Twenty Cents).

52.3.The amount mentioned in paragraph52.2 above consists of the following:

a).General Damages:R1000000, 00

b).Loss of earnings:R5759 093.20.

TOTAL:R6759 093.20

52.4.The amount mentioned in paragraphs 52.2 and52.3 above shall be payable within 180 (One hundred andeighty) days from the date of this order. In the event the saidamount is not paid within 180 days, the defendantshall be liable forthe payment of interest on such amount, at 8.25% per annum,calculated from the date of the default to the date of payment.

52.5.The Defendant is ordered to furnish the Plaintiff with anundertaking, in terms of Section 17 (4) (a) of the Road Accident FundAct 56 of 1996, for the costs of future accommodation in a hospitalor nursing home or treatment of or rendering of a service orsupplying ofgoods to the injured after such costs have been incurredand on proof thereof, relating to the injuries sustained by the minorchild.

52.6.The Defendant is ordered to pay the Plaintiffs taxed or agreedparty and party costs on High Court Scale, which costs will include,but will not be limited to the following:

52.7.The reasonable taxed fees for consultation with the experts mentionedbelow, together with delivery of expertsbundles including travellingand time spent travelling to deliver such bundles, preparation fortrial, qualifying and reservationfees (if any and proof thereof, aswell as costs of the reports, addendum reports, joint minutes andattendance fees of the followingexperts and subject to thediscretion of the Taxing Master:

(a)Neurosurgeon;

(b)Neurosurgeon’s RAF 4 Form

(c)Plastic Surgeon & RAF 4 Form;

(d)Neurologist & RAF 4 Form;

(e)Orthopaedic Surgeon and RAF 4 Form;

(f)Radiologists.

(g)Clinical Psychologist.

(h)Physician/Pulmonologist

(i)Urologist

(j)Educational Psychologists.

(k)Occupational Therapists.

(l)Industrial psychologist and

(m)Actuary

52.8.The costs of transporting; time spent and accommodation of thePlaintiff with any other service providerto the medical legalexamination(s) arranged by Plaintiff and Defendant.

52.9.The costs of any transportation service provider and accommodationfor the Plaintiff to attend court.

52.10. The costs for thePlaintiff’s Attorney travelling to and spending time travellingto pre-trial conference and attendanceof pre-trial conference by thePlaintiff attorney, subject to the discretion of the Taxation Master.

52.11. The costs forpreparation of Plaintiff’s court bundles of documents forexperts, as well as travelling costs and timespent to deliver thesebundles.

52.12. The full costs ofPlaintiff’s Counsel for perusal, consultation with the Expertsand the Plaintiff, preparation, draftingof Heads of Argument and toattend Court for Trial on the 26^th and 29^thof August 2024 on a Scale B.

52.13. The reservationand attendance fees for the Educational Psychologist, OccupationalTherapist and Industrial Psychologist to attend Court toattend Court.

52.14. The Full costs ofthe Plaintiff’s Attorneys to prepare and attend 1^stand 2^nd Judicial pre-trial case-management at Court.

52.15. The costs ofappointing an assessor to investigate merits and quantum (if any);

52.16. Costs of theinterpreter.

53.The Defendant is ordered to pay the Plaintiff’s taxed and/oragreed partyand party costs within 14 days from the date upon whichthe accounts are taxed by the Taxing master and/or agreed between theparties.

54.Should payment of taxed costs not be effected timeously, Plaintiffwill be entitledto recover interest at the rate of 8.25% onthe taxed or agreed costs from date of allocator to date of payment.

55.It is ordered that after deduction of disbursements due toPlaintiff’sattorneys of record and after deduction ofagreed/attorney and client fees and after payment of R 400000.00(Three hundred thousand rand only) to the plaintiff, thenet proceeds of the award is to be paid to the Trust to beestablished with ABSA , attached a Consentletter marked annexures“A” in the name of the beneficiary being A[...]P[...] M[...] (ID NO:0[…]) referred to as “the minorherein.

56.The amount referred to above will be paidto the plaintiff’s attorneys, Komane Attorneys trust account,details of which arethe following: -

ACCOUNTHOLDER: KOMANEATTORNEYS

NAME OFACCOUNT: FIRSTNATIONAL BANK

ACCOUNTNUMBER: 6[…]

BRANCHNAME:PRETORIA

TYPE OFACCOUNT: TRUSTACCOUNT

VUKEYA LD

JUDGE OF THE HIGHCOURT

Forthe Plaintiff: Adv SS Masina

Attorneysfor the Plaintiff :

KOMANEATTORNEYS

No13A OR Thambo Street Office 3,

5thFloor, Old Mutual Building

Middelburg

Tel:013 243 1049

Fax:012 343 6106

Email:terrence@komanelaw.co.za;

fredda@komanelaw.co.za;

phathisa@komanelaw.co.za

Forthe defendant: Ms A Nefolovhodwe

Defendant’sAttorneys: State Attorney

Mbombela

Tel: 066308 9179

Email:andanin@raf.co.za