Rand Mutual Assurance Company Limited (Phasimeni) v Road Accident Fund (49539/2013) [2017] ZAGPPHC 573 (8 September 2017)
- Citation
- [2017] ZAGPPHC 573
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- D Makhoba
- Case number
- 49539/2013
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- D Makhoba
- Case number
- 49539/2013
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Plaintiff succeeded in proving the quantum of its claim for damages against the Defendant, as supported by documentary evidence and uncontested testimony. The Defendant conceded liability and did not dispute the quantum or costs claimed. The Court found that the Plaintiff discharged the onus of proof and is entitled to judgment for the amount claimed, together with interest and costs on the High Court scale.
Court disposition
Judgment is granted in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant for the full quantum claimed, with interest and costs.
Orders
- The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of R 3 827 329.47.
- Should payment not be effected timeously, the Defendant is liable to pay interest to the Plaintiff on the capital amount at the rate of 10.50% per annum from date of judgment to date of final payment.
- The sum of R 3 827 329.47 shall be paid directly into the trust account of the Plaintiff's attorneys, Van Velden-Duffey Incorporated.
- The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff's taxed or agreed party and party costs on the High Court scale, including the fees of senior-junior counsel up to and including 23 August 2017 and for preparing Heads of Argument.
- The Plaintiff shall serve the notice of Taxation on the Defendant's attorneys of record.
- The Defendant shall have 14 Court days to make payment of the taxed costs from date of settlement or taxation thereof.
- Should payment of costs not be effected timeously, the Plaintiff shall be entitled to recover interest at the rate of 10.50% per annum on the taxed or agreed costs from due date to date of final payment.
- A contingency fee agreement is not applicable.
02
Material facts
Parties
Rand Mutual Assurance Company Limited (Phasimeni)
Plaintiff Counsel: Adv. H. VermaakRoad Accident Fund
Defendant Counsel: Adv. D. MatsetelaAmounts and remedies
- Capital Amount Awarded: ZAR 3,827,329.47
- Interest Rate Per Annum: ZAR 10.5
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Trial / Quantum Determination
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Plaintiff has discharged the onus of proving the quantum of its claim for damages against the Defendant.
- 02
Whether the Defendant disputes the quantum claimed by the Plaintiff.
- 03
Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to costs on the High Court scale.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Plaintiff argued that Mr Phasimeni was injured in the course of his employment and that the Defendant is liable for damages arising from the motor vehicle accident. The Plaintiff relied on documentary evidence, including a certificate detailing amounts already paid and the severity of Mr Phasimeni's injuries, which require ongoing medical attention. The Plaintiff submitted that the quantum of damages was properly calculated and substantiated.
- Respondent
- The Defendant conceded liability and did not dispute the quantum of the Plaintiff's claim. In its Heads of Argument, the Defendant agreed with the submissions made by the Plaintiff, including those relating to costs. No witnesses were called by the Defendant, and no evidence was led to challenge the Plaintiff's claim.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, Act 130 of 1993
A plaintiff must discharge the onus of proving the quantum of damages claimed against a defendant in a civil matter.
- 02
Rand Mutual Assurance Company Limited (Phasimeni) v Road Accident Fund (49539/2013) [2017] ZAGPPHC 573
Where liability is conceded and the quantum is not disputed, the court may grant judgment in favour of the plaintiff for the amount claimed.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Plaintiff succeeded in proving the quantum of its claim for damages against the Defendant, as supported by documentary evidence and uncontested testimony. The Defendant conceded liability and did not dispute the quantum or costs claimed. The Court found that the Plaintiff discharged the onus of proof and is entitled to judgment for the amount claimed, together with interest and costs on the High Court scale.
Obiter and limits
- The Plaintiff's claim was managed at the Head Office due to the severity of Mr Phasimeni's injuries, which require constant medical attention.
- A contingency fee agreement is not applicable in this matter.
Court disposition
Judgment is granted in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant for the full quantum claimed, with interest and costs.
- The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of R 3 827 329.47.
- Should payment not be effected timeously, the Defendant is liable to pay interest to the Plaintiff on the capital amount at the rate of 10.50% per annum from date of judgment to date of final payment.
- The sum of R 3 827 329.47 shall be paid directly into the trust account of the Plaintiff's attorneys, Van Velden-Duffey Incorporated.
- The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff's taxed or agreed party and party costs on the High Court scale, including the fees of senior-junior counsel up to and including 23 August 2017 and for preparing Heads of Argument.
- The Plaintiff shall serve the notice of Taxation on the Defendant's attorneys of record.
- The Defendant shall have 14 Court days to make payment of the taxed costs from date of settlement or taxation thereof.
- Should payment of costs not be effected timeously, the Plaintiff shall be entitled to recover interest at the rate of 10.50% per annum on the taxed or agreed costs from due date to date of final payment.
- A contingency fee agreement is not applicable.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
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.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 49539/2013
In the matter between:
RAND
MUTUAL ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
(PHASIMENI) Plaintiff
and
ROAD
ACCIDENT FUND Defendant
JUDGMENT
MAKHOBA, AJ:
[1]. The matter before Court is a claim for damages against the Defendant as a result of injuries sustained by one Mr James Sebenzile Phasimeni in a motor vehicle collision that took place on the 11th January 2012 on the N10 road in the Northern Cape Province.
[2]. Mr James Sebenzile Phasimeni was employed by Freid Delwery CC, which was insured by the Plaintiff in respect of its employees in terms of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, Act 130 of 1993.
[3]. At the commencement of the trial, both parties handed in two bundles, namely documents marked "A", and pre-trials, pleadings and notices marked "B".
[4]. The Defendant conceded liability in respect of the Plaintiff. The issue before Court is the quantum of the Plaintiff's claim.
[5]. The Plaintiff called only one witness, Mr Rhulani Makaukau, who testified that he was employed by the Plaintiff as a Claims Manager Class 4. He testified further that Mr Phasimeni was indeed injured on duty and because of the severity of his injuries, the claim was managed by him at the Head Office of the Plaintiff. In his testimony, he referred to an undisputed document which is a certificate by Rand Mutual Assurance that contains a breakdown of the amounts already paid to and on behalf of Mr Phasimeni. This document is contained on pages 73(a) and 72(b) of bundle "B". He confirmed the correctness of the amounts as set out in the Rand Mutual Certificate. In addition, he testified that Mr Phasimeni was severely injured and he requires constant medical attention as he is paraplegic.
[6]. The Plaintiff thereafter closed its case without calling any further witnesses. The Defendant closed its case without calling any witnesses.
[7]. Both parties submitted their Heads of Argument.
[8]. Counsel for the Defendant, in his Heads of Argument, agrees with the submissions made by the Plaintiff's Counsel in his Heads of Argument. Submissions made in respect of costs are also not in dispute.
[9]. In light of the evidence given by Mr Makaukau, the Court is satisfied that the Plaintiff succeeded in discharging the onus of proving the quantum of its claim against the Defendant. Moreover, the Plaintiffs claim is not in dispute by the Defendant.
[10]. Judgment is granted in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant.
[11]. The following order is made:
11.1 The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of R 3 827 329.47 (Three Million Eight Hundred Twenty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred And Twenty Nine Rand And Forty Seven Cents) ("the capital amount').
11.2 Should payment not be effected timeously, the Defendant is liable to pay interest to the Plaintiff on the capital amount at the rate of 10.50% per annum from date of judgment of final payment.
11.3 The aforementioned sum of R 3 827 329.47 (Three Million Eight Hundred Twenty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred And Twenty Nine Rand And Forty Seven Cents) shall be paid directly into the trust account of the Plaintiff's attorneys, Van Velden-Duffey Incorporated , details of which are as follows:
Account holder: Van Velden-Duffey Attorneys
Bank: ASSA Bank
Branch code: 63-01-46
Account number: […]
Reference: MAT19886
The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff's taxed or agreed party and party costs on the High Court scale, which costs shall inter alia include (but not be limited to) the following:
11.4 The fees of senior-junior counsel on the High Court scale up to and including 23 August 2017 as well as for preparing Heads of Argument ;
11.4.1. The aforesaid costs shall also be paid into the aforementioned trust account of the Plaintiff's attorneys.
11.4.2. The following provisions shall apply with regards to the determination of the aforementioned taxed or agreed costs:
11.5 The Plaintiff shall serve the notice of Taxation on the Defendant's attorneys of record;
11.5.1. The Plaintiff shall allow the Defendant 14 (fourteen) Court days to make payment of the taxed costs from date of settlement or taxation thereof ;
11.5.2. Should payment not be effected timeously, the Plaintiff shall be entitled to recover interest at the rate of 10.50% per annum on the taxed or agreed costs from due date to date of final payment.
11.6 A contingency fee agreement is not applicable.
_______
D MAKHOBA
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
CASE NO.: 49539/2013
HEARD ON: 23 AUGUST 2017
FOR THE STATE: ADV. H.VERMAAK
INSTRUCTED BY: VAN VELDEN-DUFFEY INCORPORATED
FOR THE DEFENSE: ADV. D. MATSETELA
INSTRUCTED BY: NINGIZA HORNER INCORPORATED
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08 SEPTEMBER 2017
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.