Nkatsha v Road Accident Fund (423/06) [2009] ZAECMHC 15 (13 August 2009)

Nkatsha v Road Accident Fund (423/06) [2009] ZAECMHC 15 (13 August 2009)

The court found that, given the minor child's neuropsychological deficits and the expert evidence indicating a compromised ability to complete schooling and secure employment, a higher than normal contingency was justified for her injured future earnings. The court applied a 35% contingency to the injured income, resulting in a net future loss of income of R1,620,192.90. The general damages were increased to R250,000 as conceded by the respondent. The judgment of the court a quo was set aside and replaced with an order reflecting these amounts, and the respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal and action, including qualifying expenses for expert witnesses. An undertaking in...

Citation
[2009] ZAECMHC 15
Parties
Appellant: Dorina NtomBekhaya Nkatsha; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 August 2009
Case Number
423/06
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Damages Award
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Judgment of the court a quo set aside in respect of damages and replaced with increased awards for general damages and future loss of earnings.
Judges
Dawood, Dhlodhlo, Sandi
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund, Future Loss of Earnings, Contingency Deduction, General Damages
Delict Road Accident Fund Future Loss of Earnings Contingency Deduction General 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dorina NtomBekhaya Nkatsha

Appellant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Damages Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What contingency should be applied to the minor child's claim for injured future loss of earnings?
  2. 2 Is a higher than normal contingency warranted given the minor child's post-morbid circumstances?
  3. 3 Should the damages awarded by the court a quo be set aside and replaced?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, given the minor child's neuropsychological deficits and the expert evidence indicating a compromised ability to complete schooling and secure employment, a higher than normal contingency was justified for her injured future earnings. The court applied a 35% contingency to the injured income, resulting in a net future loss of income of R1,620,192.90. The general damages were increased to R250,000 as conceded by the respondent. The judgment of the court a quo was set aside and replaced with an order reflecting these amounts, and the respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal and action, including qualifying expenses for expert witnesses. An undertaking in...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Judgment of the court a quo set aside in respect of damages and replaced with increased awards for general damages and future loss of earnings.

Orders

  • The Plaintiff is awarded, on behalf of the minor child, the sum of R250,000 in respect of general damages.
  • The Plaintiff is awarded the sum of R1,620,192.90 for future loss of earnings of the minor child.