South Africa: Mpumalanga High Court, Middelburg

You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: Mpumalanga High Court, Middelburg >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAMPMHC 14

| Noteup | LawCite

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

Download original files

PDF format

RTF format

SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

MPUMALANGA DIVISION- 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:

In the matter between:-

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

OBO MINOR CHILD PLAINTIFF

And

ROAD ACCIDENT FUND DEFENDANT

JUDGMENT

VUKEYA J

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

[2] This accident happened at Cowen Ntuli Street in Middelburg when the child collided with a motor vehicle bearing registration numbers and plates F[…] driven by the insured driver. It has been conceded that the insured driver failed to keep a proper lookout; drove at an excessive speed; failed to keep the vehicle he was driving under proper or effective control.

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

[4] Merits were settled and conceded by the respondent 100% in favour of the plaintiff. The only issues remaining for determination by the court, is the issue of future medical expenses, a reasonable amount for general damages and loss of earnings.

[5] At the beginning of the trial, the plaintiff brought an application in terms of Rule 38 (2) to admit the affidavits of the following experts into evidence without them tendering viva voce evidence. The defendant did not oppose the application and it was granted by the court. 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:

The Neurologist – Dr Mpanza

[7] The expert states in his affidavit that he assessed the minor child on 21 January 2020 in order to provide his expert opinion on the sequelae of the injuries sustained from the motor vehicle accident. As the sources of information, the doctor had at his disposal hospital records, the RAF1 form, the identity document and an instruction letter.

[8] It was reported that the child lost consciousness during the accident and woke up at the hospital. She was resuscitated at the scene following a cardiorespiratory arrest and then she was taken to Middelburg Hospital for treatment. She was admitted at ICU and later taken to Witbank Hospital for a follow up. The minor child sustained a severe traumatic brain injury; diffuse brain injury Grade 3 and a right ankle fracture dislocation.

[9] According to Dr Mpanza, the minor child complained of headaches at least 4-5 times a week (relieved by analgesia), aggressive behaviour, pain where she was sutured. She complained of pain in the eyes and a decreased vision of the left eye. Easy fatigability of the upper limbs, left knee pain and swelling and poor school performance were also amongst the things she complained about.

[10] Dr Mpanza confirmed that the child sustained a severe traumatic brain injury with loss of consciousness of unknown duration. A CT brain scan revealed a grade 3 diffuse axonal injury, a cerebral contusion and intraventricular haemorrhage. The EMS Glasgow coma scale dropped from 5/15 to 3/10 intubated and ventilated. The doctor deferred to an ophthalmologist for the painful right eye and the poor vision. He also deferred to an Orthopaedic surgeon 1for the right ankle fractured dislocation.

[11] It is the opinion of Dr Mpanza that the child suffered significant neurocognitive deficits with personality changes which might be related to the severity of the accident. He then deferred for both educational and clinical psychologist assessment. For the constant headaches the doctor recommended that the provision of analgesia be made. According to the expert, the child’s risk of post traumatic epilepsy is between 5 – 10 %.

[12] The expert opined that the child’s amenities and enjoyment of life are negatively affected by the headache. He further opined that the brain with its neurocognitive sequelae negatively impacted on her education which might affect future employment and activity of daily living. He estimated the child’s combined whole person impairment to 38% and he further considered the injuries suffered by the minor child to be serious and therefore opined that she qualifies for General Damages.

The Urologist – Dr Daniel Qubu

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

[14] It was reported to the doctor by the child’s mother that she had sustained a head injury, facial injuries and right lower limb injury. She complained of lower urinary tract symptoms, as she has nuctoria, an increased frequency to urinate and that has been bothering her at school. She wakes up about two times a night to pass urine. While she suffered urgency incontinence and had a urinary catheter while in hospital, at the time of the report it had resolved. According to the doctor, the child never had urinary tract infections and had no blood in her urine. The child also complained of poor vision, blocked nostrils, sometimes she experienced nosebleeds, cough and chest pains and left lower limb pains.

[15] Records from Middelburg hospital and information from the RAF1, revealed that the child sustained a severe head injury, diffuse axonal brain injury, small intraventricular bleed, brainstem contusion, facial injuries, laceration on the forehead, left eye swelling, bruises on the left cheek and blunt chest trauma – lung contusion. According to the doctor, the child suffered acute pain after the accident and now has chronic lower limb pains and a bothersome storage LUTS, increased frequency, nocturia and urgency to urinate. She has problems with her eyes which are sometimes teary.

[16] The doctor opined that for urological problem he calculated the child’s WPI at 5% and to arrive at a final WPI the 5% WPI should be combined with WPI calculation by other experts. She will need further treatment.

The Neurologist – Dr MR Mudau

[17] Dr Mudau confirmed the nature of the injuries sustained by the child and the treatment received as indicated by other experts. He further confirmed that the child sustained a severe diffuse injury and had to be intubated. She opined that the child presented with change in personality and behaviour, a concentration and memory problem. There were signs of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). According to Dr Mudau the injuries resulted in mild cognitive difficulties with poor scholastic performance. He deferred the issue of cognitive impairment to the Clinical Psychologist.

[18] The child also sustained a left eye injury resulting in reduced visual acuity. Her risk of late post-traumatic epilepsy had increased by 15%. Her loss of amenities of life had been affected as she was unable to do heavy physical activities, unable to exercise and to play sports. The expert opined that her neurological prognosis was fair however, her productivity, employability and insurability has been negatively affected due to the sequelae of the accident. She will become unemployable to the open labour market. She presented with moderate to severe post-traumatic headaches that are poorly controlled.

[19] The expert opined that it will be fair to award her adequate compensation for the injuries incurred during the accident and that she qualifies for general damages. She further opined that she would need further medical treatment.

The Clinical Psychologist – Mr Samuel Mphuthi

[20] This witness stated in his report that he assessed the child for purposes of providing his expert opinion on the sequelae of the injuries. Before the assessment she considered the clinical report, the RAF1, RAF4 od Dr Segwapa, Dr Mpanza, Dr Ngcoya, the medico-legal reports of Dr Mpanza, Dr GF Mabasa the Orthopaedic Surgeon, Dr Mudau the Neurologist, Dr Qubu the Urologist, Dr Kgole the Pulmonologist and Dr Dippenaar the Ophthalmic Sergeon.

[21] In his report, Mr Mphuthi confirmed the version of the child on how the accident occurred, and confirmed the nature of the injuries sustained as well as the treatment she received from the hospital. It is the evidence of Mr Mphuthi that the child’s responses to Reaction Time, Complex Attention and Cognitive Flexibility were invalid suggesting she had difficulty understanding test instructions for the relevant domains. Her overall neuropsychological performance was on low average, denoting mild neurocognitive impairment and deficit.

[22] According to Mr Mphuthi, the child’s scores for memory domains suggest that her pre-morbid scholastic aptitude was at least average, possibly above average, if verbal memory is applied as proxy for pre-morbid capacity. Thus the overall score of low average is significantly below her pre-accident capacity. It is the expert opinion of Mr Mphuthi that based on the history obtained and documentation reviewed, the child’s performance scattered between average and way below average. He further opined that these scores can be attributed to neurocognitive deficits due to the traumatic brain injury sustained, aggravated by chronic pain and stress response interfering with the allocation of cortical resources.

[23] It was concluded that the traumatic brain injury that she sustained resulted in neurocognitive deficits especially attention deficits which impact her ability to function both intellectually and socially. Her age also rendered her vulnerable to greater fallout than would have been the case had the same injury been sustained beyond the formative years. Her clinical psychological status is characterized by symptoms of post-traumatic stress mood dysregulation associated with diminished neurocognitive capacity as well as persistent pain and changed social functioning.

[24] Mr Mphuthi opined that from a neuropsychological perspective, the child’s pattern of performances on cognitive testing and her clinical psychological profile indicate that she already performs tasks at a slower pace than prior to the accident. She forgets important details, requires more time to comprehend complex tasks and will have difficulty managing her levels of frustration in the learning environment. He deferred to the Educational Psychologist regarding her diminished prospects of benefiting from mainstream education and her future learning needs and educational placement.

[25] The plaintiff called The Educational Psychologist, Ms Ntombizethu Zethu Gumede. She testified that she consulted with the minor child to determine her intellectual status and cognitive functioning. She assessed the child and was able to formulate a report based on this assessment conducted on the child. The results revealed that she was average, intellectually. She saw the child after the accident, however, the child is likely to have been above average before the accident. Educationally, the child would have coped with the mainstream school system up to grade 12. She would have progressed and passed Grade 12 with a Bachelor endorsement and would have acquired a University Degree. Had the accident not occurred, she would have been employable in the open labour market as a skilled and professional person.

[26] After the accident, she displayed learning deficits that will always impact negatively on her classroom performance. She performed below average on the vocabulary subtest suggesting that her ability to learn new information has been compromised. She has reached grade 8 post-injury but performed poorly on standardised tests of scholastic achievements in January 2020. She opined that the deficits discovered were likely to affect her more severely with the passage of time at higher grades in which greater demand is placed upon a learner’s abilities and independence.

[27] According to the expert, the child will not perform appropriately now that she has been injured and she is not going to obtain what she would have obtained had the accident not happened. In her first term of Grade 8 she failed English and performed below average. Taking into account the severe traumatic brain injury sustained by the child, it is probable that she has suffered a degree of IQ deterioration, as opined by Dr Mpanza. This witness opined that the child will not progress to be able to obtain a degree, and if there are any such chances, they are minimal.

[28] The plaintiff also led the evidence of the Occupational Therapist, Ms Lebogang Kate Papo. The expert confirmed having consulted with the minor child and prepared a report. The assessment was done in order to determine how the injuries sustained by the child affected her independent functional participation in school, her activities of daily living, social, leisure and work. When she did the assessment, she was in possession of the hospital records and reports from other experts as listed under paragraph 3 of her report.

[29] Her evidence was that the child was 11years old at the time of the accident and that she was in grade 3. When she did the assessment, the child was in Grade 8. She assessed the child’s neuro-cognitive abilities and her findings were that she was slow in writing, could not memorize global instructions and her overall cognitive ability was impaired. Generally, her cognitive perceptual components yielded poor results although she managed to score within norms, especially with concrete activities she will still struggle with complex activities.

[30] The injuries on her hip had an impact on her gross motor activities and her functionality was compromised. As the Educational Psychologists was of the opinion that the child would have problems with learning impairments, and that her future academic progress was impaired as a result, therefore this will affect her occupational training and earning potential. The Occupational therapist therefore opined that the child would struggle to get employment taking into consideration the limits she has physically and cognitively resulting from her injuries.

[31] The expert opined that the child would not cope in the open labour market as she is already compromised academically. If she does not reach matric level, most of the jobs she will qualify for will be heavy. According to the expert, as an adult seeking employment, the child should qualify for sedentary-light types of jobs with relevant accommodation set in place taking into consideration the physical, cognitive and psycho-emotional impairments. She will need a sympathetic employer who will accommodate her limitations. Without a sympathetic employer, she will struggle to get employment as she is already compromised.

[32] Pre-accident, it was reported to the witness that the child was an “A” learner as she was attaining level 7 symbols and had never repeated a grade. While post-accident, it was reported that following the accident she stayed home for over a week and returned to school while still recovering from the injuries. She used elbow crutches for over 2 months at school. It was reported that she struggled with her schoolwork post-accident and her performance dropped, although she passed fairly at the end of the year. It was further reported that since the accident, she was reluctant to do her schoolwork.

[33] The plaintiff also called the Industrial Psychologist, Ms Talifhani Ntsieni who consulted with and assessed the child to evaluate the extent and impact of the accident and related injuries on the child’s physical and cognitive functioning. The main objective was to predict her educability, employment prospects and earning potential assuming that the accident had not occurred and having regard to the consequences of the accident.

[34] Having regard to the injuries and the findings by the Educational Psychologist pre and post-accident, the witness opined that Pre-morbid, the child would have entered the labour market as a semi-skilled worker, within the formal sector AT Paterson B4/B5/C1 level. She would have probably progressed up to Paterson D1/D2 median quartile level, total package at the approximate age of 45. Post-accident and having considered the reports of other experts, the witness opined that the injuries sustained by the child in the accident have had a negative and restrictive impact on her physiological, neurosurgical, neurological, ophthalmological, urological, cognitive, psychological, learning and occupational functioning.

[35] It is the evidence of the Industrial Psychologist that the child has sustained the nature of injuries that have compromised her health and therefore affecting her as indicated above. She is an unequal competitor in the open labour market compared with her healthier peers and that she will not be able to perform functions efficiently and effectively as compared to her counterparts. It is therefore her opinion that the injuries sustained hinder the child’s career and future employability. According to the expert, the child will struggle to secure employment in the open labour market given the challenges, and that she will most likely remain unemployed. She further opines that the child has suffered a medical justifiable loss of work capacity which translates into loss of earnings.

[36] The child’s mother, Ms P[...] M[...] also tendered evidence in support of her claim and briefly stated that before the accident the child was performing good at school without any complaints on academic performance. However, after the accident, things began to change as she was called often at school. There were complaints that her academic performance has declined. She testified that since the accident, the child displays very strange behaviour and does not comprehend instructions of follow them. She always complains of headaches, forgetfulness tiredness and pain constantly.

General Damages

[37] It is a trite principle that in claims for general damages, compensation is awarded for pain, suffering, discomfort, disablement, loss of amenities of life and disfigurement, etc. resulting from the injuries sustained from the accident. The authorities have cautioned against the courts' tendency to award higher damages as compensation. There is no mathematical or scientific formula for the computation of the monetary value of pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and disabilities. (See A.A. Mutual Insurance Limited v Maqula 1978(1) SA 801 (A) and Southern Insurance Association Limited v Bailey N.O 1984 (1) S.A. 98 (A) at 114).

[38] In assessing the compensatory award, the court must be fair to both sides, i.e. an award must be a just compensation and must not “pour largesse from the horn of plenty at the defendant's expense” as stated in De Jongh v Du Pisanie 2005 (5) SA 457 (SCA). In Hully v Cox 1923 A.D. 234 at 246, the court cautioned the courts against allowing their "sympathy for the claimants" to influence their judgments in considering what compensation to award in cases such as the present.

[39] Referring the Court to numerous cases relevant to the one at hand, Counsel for the plaintiff, argued that the circumstances of the plaintiff warrant an award of general damages in the amount of R2 000 000, 00. It is worth mentioning at this point that the defendant has not made any submissions in relation to the issue of general damages and the proposed award. Amongst the cases I was referred to by the plaintiff is the case of Megdalene NO v Road Accident Fund 2006 (5A4) QOD 10 (W). In this case the plaintiff sustained a severe brain injury with diffuse and focal brain damage in the form of subdural haematoma resulting in cognitive impairment. This impairment was characterized by poor verbal and visual memory; poor concentration and distractibility; impaired executive function difficulties characterized by dysarthria and word and word retrieval difficulties; bilateral hemiparesis with severe spasticity of all four limbs and left facial paralysis as well as asphasis. The plaintiff was confined to a wheelchair. He had intelligence level of a young child. Although limited, still had insight into his predicament. An above average scholar before the accident, who would probably have undergone tertiary education, left with severe permanent physical and mental disabilities rendered him unemployable. In current value the plaintiff was awarded R 2 142 000.00.

[40] The plaintiff also referred the court to the case of Mohlaphuli NO v The South African National Road Agency Limited and Another 2013 (6A4) QOD 146 (WCC) in which the plaintiff sustained severe cranio-facial injuries with skull-base fracture, cerebro-spinal fluid leak, nasal fracture; injury to the left eye and optic nerve. He also suffered a severe traumatic brain injury with primary diffuse axonal injury, complicated by focal (frontal cerebral laceration with primary 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 a result of severe progressive brain swelling and surgical repair of a large brain laceration in the frontal lobes. There was disfigurement with cranio-facial deformity; and combined neurological and psychological problems with fatigue, memory, concentration, reading and writing, speech and executive functions. Major sustained changes in personality, mood and behaviour, having become short-tempered and aggressive with uncontrollable mood swings. He was rendered unemployable as a result of his injuries and in need of a full-time career. He was awarded R1 448 000. 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 (See Protea Assurance Co Ltd v Lamb 1971 (1) SA 530 (A) 535H -536B). It is the evidence of the all the experts that the child sustained a severe head injury, diffuse axonal brain injury, small intraventricular bleed, brainstem contusion, facial injuries, laceration on the forehead, left eye swelling, bruises on the left cheek and blunt chest trauma in a form of lung contusion. According to doctor Mpanza, the child suffered acute pain after the accident and now has chronic lower limb pains. The defendant has not disputed this evidence.

[42] Furthermore, the undisputed evidence of the plaintiff is that the child also sustained a left eye injury resulting in reduced visual acuity. Her risk of late post-traumatic epilepsy had increased by 15%. Her loss of amenities of life have been affected as she was unable to do heavy physical activities, unable to exercise and to play sports. The child has been negatively affected due to the sequelae of the accident. I agree with Dr Mudau that it will be fair to award the child adequate compensation for the injuries incurred during the accident and that she indeed qualifies for general damages.

[43] The cases I have been referred to by Counsel for the plaintiff are not on all fours with the case in consideration. I have noticed very material differences in terms of the injuries sustained more especially their severity. The injuries sustained by the plaintiff in casu may be severe but not as severe as those sustained by the plaintiff’s in the quoted cases. It is therefore my submission that a fair and reasonable award for general damages in the circumstances of the plaintiff is R1 000 000. 00.

Loss of Earnings

[44] In RAF v Guedes 2006 (5) SA 583 (SCA) at para [8] the court stated that:

‘It is trite that a person is entitled to be compensated to the extent that the person’s patrimony has been diminished in consequence of another’s negligence. . .The calculation of the quantum of a future amount, such as loss of earning capacity, is not, as I have already indicated, a matter of exact mathematical calculation. By its nature such an enquiry is speculative and a court can therefore only make an estimate of the present value of the loss which is often a rough estimate (see for example Southern Insurance Association Ltd v Bailey NO). The court necessarily exercises a wide discretion when it assesses the quantum of damages due to loss of earning capacity and has a large discretion to award what it considers right.’

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

“When a court measures the loss of earning capacity, it invariably does so by assessing what the plaintiff would probably have earned had he not been injured and deducting from that figure the probable earnings in his injured state (both figures having been properly adjusted to their 'present day values'). But in using this formulation as a basis of determining the loss of earning capacity, the court must take care to make its comparison of pre- and post-injury capacities against the same background”.

[46] It is trite that the percentage of the contingency deduction depends upon a number of factors and ranges between 5% and 100%, depending upon the facts of the case. What is important to note is the fact that the Court has a wide discretion that must be based upon a consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances. Justice and fairness to the parties is served by contingencies to be applied on the proven facts of the case. The discretion of the Court may not be usurped by the evidence of the experts such as the actuary. The actuary’s evidence only serves as a useful basis for establishing the quantum of damages.

[47] In a case as the one in consideration, it becomes necessary to compare what the minor child would have earned ‘but for” the accident with what she would likely have earned after the incident. The future loss represents the difference between the pre-morbid and post-morbid figures after the application of the appropriate contingencies. According to Mr Wim Loots, the plaintiff’s loss had accident not occurred is R 14 397 733.00. The plaintiff suggested a contingency deduction of 25%, resulting in Loss of earnings in the amount of R10 798 300.00 and a Capped Loss of earnings in the amount of R10 484 950.00.

[48] It is the plaintiff’s submission that the above scenario is reasonable and supported by the facts and evidence. According to Counsel for the plaintiff, having regard to the minor child’s scholastic history there is no objective evidence that her academics were at risk before the accident. She is a candidate who always performed well academically before the accident; therefore, chances of her dropping out of school were non-existent. The suggested contingencies, according to the plaintiff, are in line with opinion of the Industrial Psychologists.

[49] Counsel for the defendant held a different view on the issue of contingencies to be applied. She contended that a higher than normal contingency deduction be applied because the minor child has been progressing well academically even after the accident. She was in Grade 3 when the collision occurred. Post-accident, she is in Grade 9, and has not repeated a grade. Counsel suggested a contingency deduction of 75% and relied on the case of Hlalele obo Hlalele v Road Accident Fund (41304/2013)[2015] ZAGPJHC 54 where the court remarked as follows:

“Notwithstanding that the future remains unpredictable, the court is still required to calculate and award the compensation based on the unknown future in respect of the lives which may or may not be lived, in respect of disabilities which may or may not eventuate or persist or damages which may or may not eventuate”.

[50] The plaintiff in casu stayed away from school for about two weeks, attended school in crutches and returned to school while recovering. Although her performance had dropped, it must have dropped slightly because she passed that academic year. I am of the view that, after having considered all the evidence placed before me, most importantly that the child was not rendered totally incapable of earning a living and that she has been progressing fairly academically after the accident, a contingency deduction of 60% is to be applied. The amount of R14 397 733 after applying the contingency, therefore translates to R5 759.093.20 for loss of earnings for the minor. It is my respectful view that this amount is fair and reasonable.

Future medical hospital and related expenses

[51] Plaintiff in this regard seeks a full undertaking in terms of the Provisions of Section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 which I 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 the sum of R6 759 093.20 (Six Million Seven Hundred and Fifty Nine Thousand Ninety Three Rand and Twenty Cents).

52.3. The amount mentioned in paragraph 52.2 above consists of the following:

a). General Damages: R1 000 000, 00

b). Loss of earnings: R5 759 093.20.

TOTAL: R6 759 093.20

52.4. The amount mentioned in paragraphs 52.2 and 52.3 above shall be payable within 180 (One hundred and eighty) days from the date of this order. In the event the said amount is not paid within 180 days, the defendant shall be liable for the 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 an undertaking, in terms of Section 17 (4) (a) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, for the costs of future accommodation in a hospital or nursing home or treatment of or rendering of a service or supplying of goods to the injured after such costs have been incurred and on proof thereof, relating to the injuries sustained by the minor child.

52.6. The Defendant is ordered to pay the Plaintiffs taxed or agreed party 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 mentioned below, together with delivery of experts bundles including travelling and time spent travelling to deliver such bundles, preparation for trial, qualifying and reservation fees (if any and proof thereof, as well as costs of the reports, addendum reports, joint minutes and attendance fees of the following experts and subject to the discretion of the Taxing Master:

(a) Neurosurgeon;

(b) Neurosurgeon’s 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 the Plaintiff with any other service provider to the medical legal examination(s) arranged by Plaintiff and Defendant.

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

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

52.11. The costs for preparation of Plaintiff’s court bundles of documents for experts, as well as travelling costs and time spent to deliver these bundles.

52.12. The full costs of Plaintiff’s Counsel for perusal, consultation with the Experts and the Plaintiff, preparation, drafting of Heads of Argument and to attend Court for Trial on the 26^th and 29^th of August 2024 on a Scale B.

52.13. The reservation and attendance fees for the Educational Psychologist, Occupational Therapist and Industrial Psychologist to attend Court to attend Court.

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

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

52.16. Costs of the interpreter.

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

54. Should payment of taxed costs not be effected timeously, Plaintiff will be entitled to recover interest at the rate of 8.25% on the taxed or agreed costs from date of allocator to date of payment.

55. It is ordered that after deduction of disbursements due to Plaintiff’s attorneys of record and after deduction of agreed/attorney and client fees and after payment of R 400 000.00 (Three hundred thousand rand only) to the plaintiff, the net proceeds of the award is to be paid to the Trust to be established with ABSA , attached a Consent letter marked annexures “A” in the name of the beneficiary being A[...] P[...] M[...] (ID NO: 0[…]) referred to as “the minor herein.

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

ACCOUNT HOLDER : KOMANE ATTORNEYS

NAME OF ACCOUNT : FIRST NATIONAL BANK

ACCOUNT NUMBER : 6[…]

BRANCH NAME : PRETORIA

TYPE OF ACCOUNT : TRUST ACCOUNT

VUKEYA LD

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

For the Plaintiff: Adv SS Masina

Attorneys for the Plaintiff :

KOMANE ATTORNEYS

No 13A OR Thambo Street Office 3,