NOT REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA 
(WITWATERSRAND LOCAL DIVISION) JOHANNESBURG 

CASE NO: A3045/07
DATE: 2007/02/05

In the matter between
J M MONETHI...............................................................................................................Appellant
and
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND …....................................................................................Respondent

JUDGMENT

WILLIS, J: The appellant was the plaintiff in the court a quo. She claimed damages from the fund arising from an accident, which it is common cause, occurred on 2 May 1999. Her injuries are common cause and they seem to be related to her arm and right wrist.
In the trial in the Johannesburg Magistrate's Court she was awarded damages relating to past medical expenses, R35 000,00 for general damages and the fund issued a certificate or undertaking in terms of Section 17(4)(a) of Act 56 of 1996. Interest on the aforesaid sums was also awarded and the defendant was ordered to pay the costs of suit. The learned magistrate declined to make an award for damages for past loss of earnings and this is the only issue with which this particular appeal is concerned. A factor which seems to have influenced the learned magistrate was that the plaintiff had been retrenched in January of 1999 and the accident took place a short while thereafter, on 2 May 1999.
The evidence was that the plaintiff had at certain stages in her working life been able to take on semi-skilled positions and had indeed been a supervisor. She gave credible evidence and indeed the probabilities favour this version of events that, but for the accident, she would at least have been engaged in employment as a domestic worker. She cites two instances where she as offered employment. The one was at R600.00 a month and the other was at R1 200,00 a month from a former employer of hers, both of which jobs she was unable to take up, obviously because of the injury to her wrist. It seems to me that the plaintiff did indeed succeed in establishing that in all probability, but for her accident, she would at least have earned an income as a domestic worker even though there might have been other possibilities for her, but that of course would influence the figure upwards.
An award for damages of this kind is never exact. A figure of R600.00 per month seems on the low side. A figure of R1 200,00 is probably at that time in the upper reaches of what a domestic worker was likely to have earned. I consider a figure of R900.00 per month to be a good "ball park" figure. If one extrapolates this with an escalation and then makes a contingency deduction of between 10 and 15 per cent one is a in the mid R60 000,00 region for a figure. It seems to me to be appropriate simply to award a lump sum and taking everything into account, and in order not to err on the side of excessive generosity, it seems to me a figure of R60 000,00 would be appropriate. I accordingly propose that the following order be made:
 1.The appeal is upheld to the limited extent that an award for past loss of earnings is to be added to the order of the learned magistrate.
2. The additional order in the court a quo is to read as follows:-The plaintiff is awarded the sum of R60 000,00 as and for past loss of earnings."
3. The respondent is to pay the costs of this appeal.

SELVAN. AJ: I agree. 
WILLIS. J: It is so ordered.