Mosetlhe v Road Accident Fund (2993/2015) [2019] ZAGPPHC 254 (25 June 2019)

Mosetlhe v Road Accident Fund (2993/2015) [2019] ZAGPPHC 254 (25 June 2019)

The court found that while the plaintiff had suffered injuries affecting his employment, he remained in stable work and had seen salary increases since the accident. There was insufficient evidence to support the plaintiff's assertion of imminent retrenchment or early retirement. Applying the principles from Road Accident Fund v Kerridge and other authorities, the court held that a 30% contingency deduction was just and equitable under the circumstances, rather than the 50% sought by the plaintiff. The court also found that the seriousness of the case justified awarding costs for two counsels.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 254
Parties
Plaintiff: Kagiso Mosetlhe; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 June 2019
Case Number
2993/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Quantum Determination (future Loss of Earnings)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for future loss of earnings is upheld with a 30% contingency deduction. Costs for two counsels are awarded.
Judges
Makhoba
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Loss of Earning Capacity, Contingency Deductions, Future Medical Expenses
Delict Road Accident Fund Act Loss of Earning Capacity Contingency Deductions Future Medical Expenses

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kagiso Mosetlhe

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Quantum Determination (future Loss of Earnings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate contingency deduction to apply to the plaintiff's future loss of earnings claim.
  2. 2 Is the plaintiff entitled to compensation for future loss of earnings given his continued employment post-accident.
  3. 3 Should costs for two counsels be awarded due to the seriousness of the case.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the plaintiff had suffered injuries affecting his employment, he remained in stable work and had seen salary increases since the accident. There was insufficient evidence to support the plaintiff's assertion of imminent retrenchment or early retirement. Applying the principles from Road Accident Fund v Kerridge and other authorities, the court held that a 30% contingency deduction was just and equitable under the circumstances, rather than the 50% sought by the plaintiff. The court also found that the seriousness of the case justified awarding costs for two counsels.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for future loss of earnings is upheld with a 30% contingency deduction. Costs for two counsels are awarded.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff R3,297,293.60 in full and final settlement of delictual damages.
  • The defendant must pay the capital amount into the plaintiff's attorneys' trust account by 1 July 2019.