Mathenjwa v Road Accident Fund (53084/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1273 (15 December 2017)

Mathenjwa v Road Accident Fund (53084/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1273 (15 December 2017)

The court found that the contingency deductions of 15% pre-morbid and 30% post-morbid, as applied by the actuary, were fair, just and reasonable in light of the plaintiff's circumstances and the expert evidence. The plaintiff's physical and psychological sequelae from the accident have significantly impaired her earning capacity, and the expert evidence supports the actuarial calculations. The defendant failed to demonstrate that higher deductions were warranted and did not call any witnesses to support its position. The court accepted the plaintiff's expert evidence and actuarial calculations, awarding the plaintiff the sum of R3 190 717.00 for loss of earnings, inclusive of past loss.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 1273
Parties
Plaintiff: Siphesihle Sharon Mathenjwa; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 December 2017
Case Number
53084/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for future loss of earnings is upheld. Defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff R3 190 717.00 and costs as set out in the draft order.
Judges
Nkosi
Legal Topics
Loss of Earnings, Contingency Deductions, Road Accident Fund, Personal Injury, Quantum of Damages
Delict Loss of Earnings Contingency Deductions Road Accident Fund Personal Injury Quantum of Damages

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Siphesihle Sharon Mathenjwa

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate contingency deduction to apply to the plaintiff's pre- and post-morbid earnings capacity.
  2. 2 Whether the actuarial calculations and expert evidence justify the claimed future loss of earnings.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's proposal of a 50% contingency deduction is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the contingency deductions of 15% pre-morbid and 30% post-morbid, as applied by the actuary, were fair, just and reasonable in light of the plaintiff's circumstances and the expert evidence. The plaintiff's physical and psychological sequelae from the accident have significantly impaired her earning capacity, and the expert evidence supports the actuarial calculations. The defendant failed to demonstrate that higher deductions were warranted and did not call any witnesses to support its position. The court accepted the plaintiff's expert evidence and actuarial calculations, awarding the plaintiff the sum of R3 190 717.00 for loss of earnings, inclusive of past loss.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for future loss of earnings is upheld. Defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff R3 190 717.00 and costs as set out in the draft order.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff R3 190 717.00 into the trust account of Surita Marais Attorneys.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of suit, including the costs of 22 November 2017, costs of senior junior counsel, costs of erecting a trust, reasonable taxable fees for consultation and preparation for trial, qualifying and reservation fees, and costs of expert reports and joint reports as listed.