Makhombothi v Road Accident Fund (46854/2009) [2011] ZAGPJHC 65 (29 April 2011)
- Citation
- [2011] ZAGPJHC 65
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- C.J. Claassen
- Case number
- 46854/2009
More details
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- C.J. Claassen
- Case number
- 46854/2009
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the plaintiff's injuries resulted in substantial curtailment of his physical ability, with medical evidence and photographs supporting the extent of impairment. The plaintiff will require future operations, leading to further pain and immobility. Weighing the submissions of both parties and considering the nature of general damages, the court determined that R150,000.00 is a reasonable and fair amount to compensate the plaintiff for pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, and disfigurement.
Court disposition
General damages awarded to the plaintiff in the amount of R150,000.00. Draft order paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 marked 'X' made an order of court.
Orders
- The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff R150,000.00 as general damages for pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, and disfigurement.
- Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the draft order marked 'X' are made an order of court.
02
Material facts
Parties
Mbongiseni Makhombothi
Plaintiff Counsel: Mr du PlessisRoad Accident Fund
Defendant Counsel: Mr PilusaAmounts and remedies
- General Damages Awarded: ZAR 150,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Trial / Quantum of Damages
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
What is the appropriate amount of general damages for the plaintiff's pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, and disfigurement resulting from the accident injuries.
- 02
Should the plaintiff be compensated for future pain and suffering due to anticipated further operations?
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr du Plessis, argued that the plaintiff, an artisan, suffered substantial curtailment of his physical ability due to the injuries sustained. Medical reports and photographs demonstrate significant impairment, and future operations are required because one leg is now shorter than the other, resulting in ongoing pain and immobility. He submitted that R150,000.00 is an appropriate amount for general damages.
- Respondent
- Counsel for the defendant, Mr Pilusa, acknowledged the plaintiff's injuries but contended that R100,000.00 would be a reasonable award for general damages, considering the nature and extent of the injuries and the anticipated future suffering.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law principles; no specific statute cited.
General damages for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and disfigurement are assessed based on the extent of physical impairment and future suffering, often relying on judicial discretion informed by medical evidence.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff's injuries resulted in substantial curtailment of his physical ability, with medical evidence and photographs supporting the extent of impairment. The plaintiff will require future operations, leading to further pain and immobility. Weighing the submissions of both parties and considering the nature of general damages, the court determined that R150,000.00 is a reasonable and fair amount to compensate the plaintiff for pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, and disfigurement.
Obiter and limits
- General damages are, to a large extent, a matter of judicial discretion and gut feeling, informed by the evidence presented.
Court disposition
General damages awarded to the plaintiff in the amount of R150,000.00. Draft order paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 marked 'X' made an order of court.
- The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff R150,000.00 as general damages for pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, and disfigurement.
- Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the draft order marked 'X' are made an order of court.
Source and reliance status
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Judgment
NOT REPORTABLE
IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 46854/2009
DATE: 29/04/2011
In the matter between:
MBONGISENI MAKHOMBOTHI..................................................................Plaintiff
and
ROAD ACCIDENT FUND........................................................................Defendant
JUDGMENT
C. J. CLAASSEN J:
What remains to be decided, is the appropriate amount in respect of general damages for loss of amenities of life, pain and suffering and disfigurement. The plaintiff is an artisan who is dependent upon his physical ability to perform his profession. The medical reports indicate that there has been a substantial curtailment of his physical ability. There are some photographs which indicate this impairment quite clearly on page 36 of the plaintiff’s expert bundle.
It is also common cause that the plaintiff will have to undergo future operations since the one leg is now shorter than the other. There will, therefore, be further pain and suffering and immobility for a shorter or a longer period of time.
Mr du Plessis asked for an amount of R150 000.00 in respect of general damages whereas Mr Pilusa submitted R100 000.00 would be appropriate. In my view general damages is, to a large extent, a gut feeling. In my view, it would not be unreasonable to award the amount of R150 000.00 for the general damages suffered by the plaintiff.
In this regard I order that paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the draft order marked "X" be made an order of court.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED AT JOHANNESBURG ON THIS 27th DAY OF JUNE 2011.
_____
C.J.CLAASSEN
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.