Dichabe obo GN v Road Accident Fund (18770/16) [2020] ZAGPPHC 253 (15 June 2020)

Dichabe obo GN v Road Accident Fund (18770/16) [2020] ZAGPPHC 253 (15 June 2020)

The court found that the table in paragraph 40 of the judgment contained a typographical error regarding the contingency deduction percentages. Paragraph 39 and the calculation itself correctly applied a 25%/40% contingency deduction. The error in the table was therefore rectified to reflect the correct percentages, ensuring the judgment accurately records the court's intention and calculation.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 253
Parties
Plaintiff: K D Dichabe obo GN; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 June 2020
Case Number
18770/16
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Correction of Judgment
Outcome
The judgment is corrected to reflect the correct contingency deduction percentages in paragraph 40.
Judges
Neukircher
Legal Topics
Correction of Typographical Error, Contingency Deduction, Judgment Rectification
Civil Procedure Correction of Typographical Error Contingency Deduction Judgment Rectification

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K D Dichabe obo GN

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Correction of Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judgment contains a typographical error regarding the contingency deduction percentages.
  2. 2 Whether the table in paragraph 40 should reflect a 25%/40% contingency deduction as applied in the calculation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the table in paragraph 40 of the judgment contained a typographical error regarding the contingency deduction percentages. Paragraph 39 and the calculation itself correctly applied a 25%/40% contingency deduction. The error in the table was therefore rectified to reflect the correct percentages, ensuring the judgment accurately records the court's intention and calculation.

Court Disposition

The judgment is corrected to reflect the correct contingency deduction percentages in paragraph 40.

Orders

  • Paragraph 40 of the judgment is corrected to read 'Less 25%/40% contingency deduction' in the relevant portion of the table.