---

“IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA”

NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG

                                      CASE NUMBER: RAF283/2016 

In the matter between:-

BASIMANE ERIC MOHUTSIWA                                                              Plaintiff

And

ROAD ACCIDENT FUND                                                                          Defendant

JUDGMENT

GUTTA J.

A.        INTRODUCTION

[1]        Plaintiff, Basimane Eric Mohutsiwa issued summons against the Road Accident Fund (RAF) for damages arising from a motor vehicle collision which occurred on 10 November 2014 in Boitekong, Rustenburg. It is alleged in the particulars of claim that plaintiff was a pedestrian and was hit by an unknown vehicle driven by an unknown driver.

[2]        At the onset of the trial the parties agreed on the following:

a)        Merits were settled with 80% in favour of plaintiff;

b)        Defendant to pay general damages in the amount of R360 000 000.00, after the apportionment;

c)        Defendant to provide an undertaking limited to 80% for plaintiff’s future medical expenses; and

d)        The only issue for this Court to consider is the question of whether plaintiff suffered future loss of earnings.

B.        COMMON CAUSE

[3]        The common cause facts are the following:-

3.1       Plaintiff was 38 years old at the time of the accident and is presently 42 years old.

3.2       Plaintiff had previously also instituted an action under case no RAF 171/13 against the RAF for damages arising from a motor vehicle collision which occurred on the 19 August 2012 in Rustenburg (the first accident).

3.3       Plaintiff’s highest standard of education is Grade 11.

3.4       Prior to the accident, plaintiff worked at the Anglo Platinum Mine as a Transport Haulage. He worked underground in the tunnel and development area. Following the first accident, plaintiff was off work for four months. He later returned to work and then resigned in October 2013. He remained unemployed when the collision which is the subject matter of this case, occurred on the 10 November 2014 (the second accident). After the second collision, plaintiff opened a tuck shop which he continues to run.

3.6       Plaintiff was compensated by the RAF for future loss of earnings in the first accident.

3.7       Plaintiff sustained the following injuries in the first accident.

a)     head injury with skull fracture transverse;

b)      fractures of the midshafts of the right tibia fibula and abrasion

c)      soft tissue injury of the neck and back.

3.8       In the second accident, which is relevant for this case, plaintiff sustained the following injuries:

a)       fracture of the right humerus;

b)       fracture of the right tibia and fibula;

c)       head injury with facial laceration;

d)       fractured upper tooth;

e)      whiplash injury to the neck

C.        ISSUE IN DISPUTE

[4]        The only issue in dispute is whether plaintiff is entitled to claim damages for future loss of income in circumstances where plaintiff was already compensated for future loss of income in the first accident and was unemployed prior to the second accident.

D.        EVIDENCE

[5]        Three witnesses were called on behalf of plaintiff, namely, plaintiff, Adelaide Phasha, (the occupational therapist) and Siphiwe Katjene, (the industrial psychologist). Defendant called two witnesses, namely, Success Moagi, (an occupational therapist) and Moipone Kheswa, (an industrial psychologist). The evidence is briefly summarised hereinbelow.

[6]        Plaintiff, Basimane Eric Mohutsiwa testified that in 2012 he was involved in the first accident wherein he was a passenger in a motor vehicle and he sustained injuries to his foot, forehead and neck. Prior to the first accident he worked at the mine, loading and off-loading underground materials. He returned to work after the first accident but stopped working because they were required to wear helmets and the helmet was too heavy and he suffered from headaches. He also experienced pain in his foot from the gum boots. He had requested his employer to transfer him to another section but he was not successful in securing a transfer.

[7]        In respect of the second accident, he explained that he was the driver of a motor vehicle in the company of two other men when his vehicle switched off at a traffic light. While he and the other men tried to push the vehicle, another motor vehicle approached from behind. To avoid the vehicle colliding into him, he moved into the opposite lane and the vehicle that was approaching from behind also move to the other side of the road and collided with him.

[8]        He sustained injuries to his knee, tibia, shoulder and head. His highest standard of education is grade 11. He failed his grade 12 examination. He is presently running a tuck shop and cannot stand for long periods and cannot lift heavy objects. He drives a vehicle to purchase stock for his tuck shop. He uses an assistant driver on busy days because he can’t interchange the pedals in the vehicle for long periods.

[9]        In cross examination he said when he had the second accident he was already unemployed as a result of the first accident and that the second accident did not render him unemployable.

[10]      Adelaide Phasha, the occupational therapist testified that, she consulted with plaintiff on the 17 May 2016, and compiled a report. As an occupational therapist she determined plaintiff’s level of functioning and what work he is suited for. In her report, she said that plaintiff “meets the mobility and position tolerance requirements as well as some of the dynamic strength requirements of his job, which fall predominately within light category of work with occasional medium aspects. He does not meet the waist-to-eye lifting requirement and therefore will require the use of assistive devices and an ergonomically suited working environment to avoid overhead or waist-to-eye lifting”.

[11]      She concluded that plaintiff could do light category of work because he could handle up to 9 and 19kg of weight. He has a fracture of the humerus and osteoarthristis of the right knee. In her report she said “In February 2015, he started a tuck shop at his home. He also sells chickens. He reported no limitations when performing his duties. This was still the case at the time of this consultation in May 2016”. She said plaintiff now testified that he takes breaks. His condition is deteriorating further which is consistent with osteoarthritis. “The pain in the right shoulder, the right side of the neck as well as the right lower leg, was exacerbated by certain tasks, such as repetitive shoulder movement, working overhead, lifting and standing. It is therefore expected that he will always struggle with these tasks”.

[12]      She foresaw the possibility that plaintiff will be rendered unemployable because he would have to do a knee replacement in the next 20 years. In her report she said “the writer is of the opinion that some of Mr Mohutsiwa’s challenges may improve once the fracture has united. However, he will always be left with irreversible problems including osteoarthritis in the right knee and muscle wasting of the right upper limb and thigh. Dr Mafelane recommended a total right knee replacement surgery in 20 years. Thus the claimant will always struggle with occupations where he has to stand and walk for long periods. Additionally, as the arthritis in the right knee progresses, he will start experiencing increasingly more pain. He will require adequate rest breaks and postural changes as well as the implementation of joint care principles, pain alleviating strategies and spinal hygiene principles.

            Once he requires a total knee replacement, it will not be advisable for him to engage in tasks where he places excessive strain on the joint, such as prolonged standing, walking and driving as well as tasks requiring body agility and flexibility. He will then ideally be suited for sedentary and limited work, where he can remain seated for most of the day, or at least alternate between sitting and standing. Although, it is expected that he may still be able to cope with his current work, due to the fact that he runs the tuck shop from his home, and only gets up when there are clients, he will never be able to expand his shop into a more formal setting.

            Mr Mohutsiwa furthermore, reported several mood and behavioural problems, including short-temperedness and irritability. These factors will negatively affect his general functioning and therefore his work pace, productivity and efficiency. If they are not well managed, he will be prone to disagreement with customers, thus increasing his vulnerability to lose business.”

[13]     She said plaintiff will in the future not be able to run the tuck shop on his own. He has reduced capacity now because of the injury to his right shoulder and right leg. She said furthermore his psychological functioning will also deteriorate in that his vulnerability will erode his occupational function. Under cross examination, she reiterated that with time he will find it difficult to run his tuck shop, namely to buy stock and to load and off load goods without assistance.

[14]      She said at the time she compiled the report she was aware of the injuries sustained by plaintiff in the first accident but not the sequelae. Plaintiff had reported that from his first accident he had headaches and pain in the neck and this exacerbated his current injuries. She further conceded under cross examination that in her report she does not state that plaintiff will be unemployable. In her report she said that “he should be considered a vulnerable employee and is seen as an unequal competitor in the open labour market”. Currently, he works with the assistance of his partner driver. She reiterated that in the absence of assistance he will be unemployable. She admitted that he does not have any work related future aspirations.  Ms Phasha deferred to an industrial psychologist with regards to loss of earning capacity.

[15]      Plaintiff called Siphiwe Katjene, an Industrial Psychologist. She consulted with plaintiff on 21 November 2016. She assessed plaintiff’s past and future loss of earning and employability post-accident. In her report,she said the following:

“a)       Past loss of earnings

“Mr Mohutsiwa has not managed to secure any form of employment since the accident. He has been unemployed for approximately 1 – 2 years prior to the accident. As a result no past loss of income is attributed to the accident under review.

              b)      Future loss of earnings

“Based on the expert opinions, Mr Mohutsiwa is considered a vulnerable and unequal competitor in the open labour market. It should also be indicated that it has been almost 3 years post-accident without a job, with the injuries sustained his employability remains uncertain, as thus he is highly likely to continue suffering loss of earnings”.

            SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

“Mr Mohutsiwa’s physical functioning has been negatively impacted. He is most likely not to reach similar levels of employment than he was likely to have reached had it not been for the accident.

It is with no doubt that the accident and sequelae has curtailed his employability within the open labour market and has resulted in loss of income”.

[16]      She said she was not aware until today in Court that plaintiff ran a tuck shop.  He is still suffering a loss of earnings based on his pre-accident earnings. In respect of his future loss of earnings, she said plaintiff will progressively struggle in the open labour market to secure jobs and there will be long periods of unemployment. Noting his arthritis and the fact that he will require a total knee replacement, he might suffer a total loss of income. The degeneration could happen earlier.

[17]      Under cross examination, she said it would be difficult for plaintiff to run his tuck shop unless assisted. She said he runs a tuck shop because of his injuries and if it were not for the injuries he would have returned to the open labour market. She admitted that she was not aware of the first accident. It was put to her that plaintiff is unemployable because of the first accident. She said plaintiff was likely to return to work after the first accident. She said the injuries in the first and second accident are different and that the osteoarthritis of the knee has compromised plaintiff. She denied that her report would have changed and reiterated that if not for the accident, he was likely to return to the labour market.

[18]      She conceded under cross examination that plaintiff did not indicate that he was not looking for work and that she did not seek collateral information when compiling her report. It was put to her that if the basis for her findings namely the sequitor of the first accident is incorrect, then her findings are incorrect. She said even if she was aware of the first accident, her findings would not have changed. The only difference is that plaintiff is suffering loss not a total loss of income.

[19]      Defendant’s first witness was Success Moagi, an occupational therapist who has been working in the field for 19 years. She assessed plaintiff on 13 March 2017 and prepared a report. She said at the time she assessed plaintiff he was unemployed. He had told her about his first accident in 2012. He told her he sustained a head and right lower limb injury. He did not tell her of the impact and sequelae of the first accident and that he could not manage the physical requirements of his previous employment and that, that was the reason why he left his employment and was unemployed. She focussed on the injuries plaintiff sustained in the 2014 accident and the sequelae of the second accident.

[20]      She and plaintiff’s expert agreed on the plaintiff’s physical limitations. The only difference was that plaintiff told her he was unemployed while he told plaintiff’s expert he had a tuck shop. They both agreed that plaintiff would be able to continue with the tuck shop because the physical requirements are not demanding.

[21]      During cross examination she said the same limb was injured in the 2012 and 2014 accident, namely the right lower limb and the new injury was the fracture of the humerus. When it was put to her that the fracture of the tibia is a new injury, she disputed that and said that the proximal tibia is the knee while distal tibia is the ankle. The hospital records refer to a right tibia midshaft fracture which is in the middle of the tibia. Therefore it is not the ankle or the knee. She deferred to an expert whether the knee was involved. She said the tibia fibula is a lower leg fracture and affects plaintiff’s standing endurance. Knee pain is justified for anyone with a tibia fibula fracture. The fracture of the upper arm humerus affects the strength of the right upper arm. In her report she said the following:

            “Mr Mohutsiwa’s physical capacity does not fully meet the physical requirements for activities that require the whole-body range of motion, agility and stamina through the gross body movements.

            It was also noted that Mr Mohutsiwa’s physical capacity could not competently meet the physical requirements for work sample that requires a person to frequently work above shoulder level bilaterally or unilaterally (with right hand), put constant strain on right dominant upper limb or require repeated frequent right upper limb movement and prolonged exertion, strength and endurance.

            He also struggle with the physical requirements for occupations/activities that require a person to frequently work below knee level, inclusive of crouching and squatting positions due to reported right lower limb pain.

            His static standing endurance is negatively affected by reported right lower limb pain and he presented with asymmetrical walking postural patterns during physical capacity evalution.

            It was also evident that Mr Mohutsiwa’s rate of work qualification profile as well as physical capacity could meet the physical requirements for sedentary, light to early ranges of medium types of work category.

            Mr Mohutsiwa’s physical capacity could not meet the physical requirements for full range of medium, heavy to very heavy types of work category”.

[22]      She could not state to what extent the femur fracture comprised plaintiff’s and deferred to an expert. She said he can meet the demands of a tuck shop which is light work, but if the tuck shop exceeds light work he won’t be able to work as it exceeds his residual physical capacity. He can delegate medium heavy work. She deferred to an Industrial Psychologist on the issue of whether plaintiff is unemployable.

[23]      The next witness for defendant was Moipone Kheswa, an industrial psychologist since 2009. She assessed plaintiff on the 13 March 2017 and compiled a report. She said in 2012, plaintiff was involved in the first accident and he discontinued working because of the injuries he sustained in that accident. Hence he was unemployed at the time of the accident. The first accident had a bearing on the second accident and the sequelae.

[24] She considered plaintiff’s family background, that he has 2 siblings, one is unemployed and the other a police officer and his daughter is in grade 11. She also considered his educational history that he completed grade 11. She said the occupational therapist said plaintiff can only do sedentary and light jobs. She opined that based on his educational profile he can do sedentary/office based work. The tuck shop would be considered sedentary if there is someone to help him pick up heavy items.

[25]      When questioned about his employment projectory, she said after plaintiff was injured in the first accident he could not continue with his employment and resigned. The second accident was two years after the first accident and as plaintiff did not have grade 12 it would be difficult for him to be retrained for an alternative career and as an injured person it is difficult to secure work. His level of education, high unemployment and previous injury are considerations. Under past loss of earnings, Kheswa opined that there was no loss of earnings as plaintiff was unemployed at the time of the accident. Under future loss of earnings, she opined that the accident did not render him unemployable in the open labour market. It has only reduced his functional capacity because of pain and decreased physical ability. Plaintiff’s employability was curtailed by his level of education in the present open competitive labour market. The accident may have worsened the situation. His involvement in yet another accident also somehow compromised his chances of employment since he resigned from his job due to injuries sustained in the first accident.

[26]      She reported that, “Post accident, plaintiff was left with the sequelae of physical injuries that he sustained in the accident.

From a cognitive perspective, Mr Mohutsiwa reportedly sustained a head injury and is currently presenting with forgetfulness and short temperedness. Writer however, writes to highlight the fact that he also reported another head injury sustained in a separate accident in 2012. Deference is thus made to the Neurologist to comment on the reported head injuries in terms of extent, severity, prognosis and the effect thereof on his occupational functioning, as well as apportionment thereof.

            From the physical perspective, based on the available information and expert opinion, it is evident to the writer that post accident, Mr Mohutsiwa’s scope of employment had been reduced by the sequelae of the accident under review. He currently won’t be able to compete fairly for a job in the open labour market for occupations that require increased mobility and having physical exertion.

            Writer acknowledges that Mr Mohutsiwa’s employment opportunities have been curtailed and that he may be disadvantaged in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and productivity when compared to his uninjured counterparts.

            The writer further notes that, he also sustained an injury on the right leg as well as lacerations on the right side of the body in 2012, which had already compromised his ability to lift or carry  loads. Therefore, one of the problems the writer faces is separating Mr Mohutsiwa’s present experienced symptoms from his pre-existing pathology. Given the fact that he also resigned from his last employment due to the pains and discomfort as a result of the above highlighted accident. Writer thereof defers to the medical opinion regarding the effects of his pre-existing pathology and its effects thereof, lest this accident in question might be considered a scape goat. The accident may only have exacerbated his situation”.

[27]      She opined that plaintiff is compromised until such time that he receives treatment. Plaintiff retains the physical ability to perform sedentary, light to early ranges of medium types of work category in the open labour market. Therefore, she concludes that the second accident has not rendered him unemployable.

[28]      Under cross examination she was referred to her report where she said “From the physical perspective, based on the available information and expert opinions, it is evident to the writer that post-accident Mr Mohutsiwa’s scope of employment had been reduced by the sequelae of the accident under review. He currently won’t be able to compete fairly for a job in the open labour market for occupations that require increased mobility and heavy physical exertion”. She explained that the second accident exacerbated the injuries. The problem was to differentiate the effect of the first and second accident. She deferred to the medical experts regarding apportionment as to how far the second injury exacerbated the first injury. She could not agree on the degree that the injuries in the second accident further diminished plaintiff. She was not sure whether he was employable after the first accident because he resigned and he was uneducated and because there is a high level of unemployment. It was thus going to be difficult for him to secure work in the open labour market. The possibility exists that he would have struggled to secure a job in the open labour market after the first accident and with the new injury in the second accident.

[29]      She admitted that the injuries in the second accident further diminished his capacity to work. She did not agree that the second accident resulted in a further loss on income, because his ability to work was already compromised as he left his work and couldn’t work and couldn’t lift or carry heavy loads. She said he was further compromised by the second accident as he couldn’t do physical work.

E.        EVALUATION

[30]      When considering the totality of the evidence, it is clear that plaintiff’s and defendant’s expert witnesses agree that the second accident further reduced plaintiff’s capacity to work.

[31]      Plaintiff’s occupational therapist, Ms Phasha concluded that plaintiff could do light category of work. Although Ms Phasha in her report did not state that plaintiff will be rendered unemployable, she testified that she foresaw the possibility that plaintiff will be rendered unemployable because he will need to do a knee replacement procedure in the next 20 years and because of his arthritis. She however contradicts herself in that she later said that “once he requires a total knee replacement, he will then be ideally suited for sedentary type work. It is expected that he may still be able to cope with his current work, due to the fact that he runs the tuckshop from his home, and only gets up when there are clients, he will never be able to expand his shop into a more formal setting”. What is significant is that Ms Phasha acknowledged that she was not aware of the sequelae of the injuries sustained in the first accident and whether the injuries sustained in the first accident exacerbated plaintiff’s current injuries. She further acknowledged that plaintiff did not have any work related future aspiriations.

[32]      Defendant’s occupational therapist, Ms Moagi did not take the sequelae of the first accident into consideration in compiling her report. She said plaintiff could continue with his tuck shop because the physical requirements are not demanding and it falls under the category of light work. She deferred to the industrial psychologist on the issue whether plaintiff was unemployable.

[33]      What is clear from the aforegoing is that both plaintiff and defendant’s occupational therapists, Ms Phasha and Ms Moagi opined that plaintiff could do light category work and could meet the demands of a tuck shop. Plaintiff’s occupational theparist opined that plaintiff will in the future require assistance to operate his tuck shop. Ms Moagi opined if the tuck shop exceeds light work, he will have to delegate the work. Neither plaintiff nor defendant’s occupational therapist considered the sequelae of the first accident. They also both deferred to an industrial psychologist regarding plaintiff’s loss of earning capacity.

[34]      Ms Katjene, plaintiff’s, industrial psychologist concluded that the accident and the sequelae curtailed plaintiff’s employability and has resulted in loss of income. She also opined that plaintiff might suffer a total loss of income when considering his arthritis and the fact that he will require a total knee replacement. Ms Katjene admitted that she was not aware that plaintiff ran a tuck shop nor was she aware that plaintiff was involved in the first accident. She conceded under cross examination that even if she had been made aware, the only difference in her report is that plaintiff suffered a loss of income and not a total loss of income.

[35]      The aforesaid concession is important as it is consistent with defendant’s experts that, although plaintiff suffered a lack of capacity as a result of the second accident, he was not rendered unemployable

[36]      Defendant’s industrial psychologist, Ms Kheswa is the only expert who in her written report considered the injuries and the sequelae of the first accident in relation to the injuries and the sequelae of the second accident. She concluded that the first accident had a bearing on the second accident and its sequelae. From a cognitive perspective, she deferred to a neurosurgeon or neurologist to comment on plaintiff’s head injuries in relation to the first accident and to comment on the apportionment. From a physical perspective she agreed that plaintiff’s scope of employment has been reduced and that he would not be able to compete in the open labour market for jobs that require physical exertions. She said plaintiff can do sedentary work and the tuck shop is considered sedentary provided that there is someone to help him pick up heavy items. She concluded that plaintiff is employable. She noted that plaintiff also sustained an injury to the right leg in the first accident and she encountered difficulty in separating plaintiff’s present symptoms from his pre-existing pathology and again deferred to expert medical opinions regarding the effects of pre-existing pathology and its effect thereof.

[37]      What is common cause is that plaintiff sustained head injuries and injuries to his right leg in both the first and the second accident. As a result of the injuries sustained in the first accident, plaintiff received compensation from the RAF for past and future loss of income. Plaintiff sustained a fracture of the humerus in the second accident. Defendant’s industrial psychologist opines that plaintiff is not unemployable as a result of the second accident. Plaintiff’s industrial psychologist conceded this point under cross examination. In my view, although plaintiff was unemployed prior to the second accident, plaintiff has been further compromised and suffered a loss of earning capacity as a result of the injuries sustained in the second accident. Plaintiff has however not been rendered unemployable.

[38]      Hence what was left for the Court to consider is:

a)    To what extent had the injuries and the sequelae in the first accident impacted on plaintiff’s loss of earning capacity in the second accident.

b)     The apportionment if any to apply.

c)      Contingencies

[39]      What is clear from Ms Kheswa’s opinion is that the second accident exacerbated plaintiff’s pre-existing injuries but the problem was to differentiate the effect of the injuries sustained in the first accident to the injuries sustained in the second accident. Plaintiff’s own expert Ms Moagi testified that the fracture to the humerus was a new injury in the second accident and deferred to an expert regarding the extent the femur fracture compromised plaintiff’s earning capacity.

[40]      Plaintiff bore the onus to prove on a balance of probability that plaintiff suffered future loss of future income as a result of the injuries he sustained in the first accident and to prove the quantum of damages. Plaintiff had a duty to call experts to assist the Court in differentiating the effect that the injuries and sequelae of the first accident had on the second accident and the sequelae and the apportionment thereof. Plaintiff failed to call a neurosurgeon/neurologist in respective of the cognitive issues and an orthopaedic surgeon or other relevant experts in respect of the physical issues. No evidence was led in respect of the apportionment thereof. Plaintiff ignored the pre-existing injury when calculating the quantum of damages for future loss of income.

[41]      Plaintiff’s actuarial report by Munro Consulting which was tendered into evidence by agreement did not consider the scenario of a diminished earning capacity and only considered that plaintiff is rendered unemployable as a result of the second accident. The basis of the calculation from the information they received is that:

            “According to the information provided, the claimant:

·         was unable to work to date; and is expected to remain unemployable in the future.

·         Is expected to incur future costs”.

[42]      Hence the actuary did not consider the scenario that plaintiff suffered a diminished earning capacity and is not unemployable, also the actuary was not furnished with information that plaintiff was presently earning an income by running his tuck shop. The actuary further states that they were not provided with any income regarding the apportionment of the claim and hence ignored apportionment for the purpose of their calculation. Under uninjured income, the actuary took plaintiff’s income that he earned prior to the first accident into consideration. This is an error as plaintiff was not earning any income for approximately two years prior to the accident. Under injured income, the actuary said “according to the information provided the claimant has not earned any income since the date of the accident, and he will not earn any income in the future”. Thus as stated supra, is incorrect as plaintiff after the second collision opened a tuck shop which he continues to run and from which he derives an income. Hence the Court cannot attach any weight to the plaintiff’s actuary report.

[43]      In the result, I am of the view that plaintiff failed to prove the quantum of damages he suffered as a result of his diminished earning capacity. Accordingly plaintiff failed to discharge the onus to prove that he is entitled to compensation for future loss of income.

F.         ORDER

[44]      In the result,

1)   Defendant is to furnish plaintiff with an undertaking in terms of Section 17(4) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996 for the costs, limited to 80% of the future accommodation of plaintiff in a hospital or nursing home for treatment or the rendering of a service or the supplying of goods to him after such costs have been incurred and on proof of payment hereof.

2)     Defendant to pay plaintiff an amount of R360 000.00 for general damages;

3)     Defendant to pay plaintiff’s cost incurred prior to 13 November 2017 on a party and party basis on a High Court scale.

4)     Plaintiff’s claim for future loss of income is dismissed.

5)     Plaintiff is to pay defendant’s costs of suit from 13 November 2017 on a party and party basis on the High Court scale, including the qualifying fees of the following defendant’s experts and the preparation of their medico legal reports:

i.       Success Moagi, occupational therapist; and

ii.      Moipone Kheswa, industrial psychologist.

N. GUTTA

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

APPEARANCES

DATE OF HEARING                              :  23 MARCH 2018

DATE OF JUDGMENT                           :  14 JUNE 2018

ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF                 :  ADV SIBANDA

ADVOCATE FOR DEFENDANT              :  ADV MOTHIBI

ATTORNEYS FOR APPLICANT              :  MOTSHABI & MODIBOA

(Instructed by Mphela & Associates)                

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT                     :  MAPONYA INC.

 

---