Download PDF

South Africa Order

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Stevens and Another v Road Accident Fund (26017/2016) [2022] ZAGPJHC 859 (1 November 2022)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the original order failed to apply the 15% contingency deduction on the future earnings of the deceased, as stated in the judgment, and omitted an explicit order declaring the defendant 100% liable for the proven damages of the first plaintiff. In terms of Rule 42, the court corrected the order to reflect these points, ensuring that the sums awarded to the plaintiffs properly accounted for the contingency deduction and that the defendant's liability was clearly stated. The corrected order also specified the payment terms, interest, and costs, and directed payment into the plaintiffs' attorneys' trust account.

Court disposition

Order corrected under Rule 42 to apply the 15% contingency deduction and to declare the defendant 100% liable for the proven damages of the first plaintiff.

Orders

  • The defendant is liable for 100% of the proven damages of the first plaintiff.
  • The defendant is to pay the first plaintiff R754,193.90.
  • The defendant is to pay the second plaintiff R448,520.90.
  • The defendant shall pay interest on the sums in orders 2 and 3 from 14 days after the date of this order at the prescribed mora rate, if payment is not made within 180 days.
  • The defendant is to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the action, including costs of obtaining the actuarial report, to be agreed or taxed.
  • The defendant shall pay the agreed or taxed costs within 14 days from the date of this order, if payment is not made within 180 days from taxation or agreement.
  • All amounts payable by the defendant to the plaintiffs shall be paid into the trust account of Anton Myburgh Attorneys for the credit and benefit of the plaintiffs.

02

Material facts

Parties

Sussan Cornelia Susarah Stevens

Plaintiff Counsel: AS Myburgh

Shereen Botes

Plaintiff Counsel: AS Myburgh

Road Accident Fund

Defendant Counsel: M Khan

Amounts and remedies

  • First Plaintiff's Award: ZAR 754,193.9
  • Second Plaintiff's Award: ZAR 448,520.9

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Procedure / Correction of Judgment/order Under Rule 42

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The plaintiffs sought correction of the judgment to reflect the proper application of the 15% contingency deduction on future earnings and to include an explicit order that the defendant is 100% liable for the proven damages of the first plaintiff, as stated in the judgment but omitted from the operative order.
Respondent
The defendant's legal representative brought the error to the court's attention, agreeing that the 15% contingency deduction was not applied in the operative order and that the liability order for the first plaintiff was omitted, requesting correction under Rule 42.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Rule 42 of the Uniform Rules of Court

    A court may correct an order under Rule 42 of the Uniform Rules of Court where there is an error or omission in the judgment or order.

  2. 02

    Road Accident Fund v Guedes 2006 (5) SA 583 (SCA)

    Contingency deductions must be applied to future earnings in loss of support claims to account for uncertainties.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the original order failed to apply the 15% contingency deduction on the future earnings of the deceased, as stated in the judgment, and omitted an explicit order declaring the defendant 100% liable for the proven damages of the first plaintiff. In terms of Rule 42, the court corrected the order to reflect these points, ensuring that the sums awarded to the plaintiffs properly accounted for the contingency deduction and that the defendant's liability was clearly stated. The corrected order also specified the payment terms, interest, and costs, and directed payment into the plaintiffs' attorneys' trust account.

Obiter and limits

  • The correction of the order serves as an extra precaution to ensure clarity and accuracy in the court's directions.
  • The court emphasizes the importance of explicitly stating liability and the application of contingency deductions in loss of support claims.

Court disposition

Order corrected under Rule 42 to apply the 15% contingency deduction and to declare the defendant 100% liable for the proven damages of the first plaintiff.

  • The defendant is liable for 100% of the proven damages of the first plaintiff.
  • The defendant is to pay the first plaintiff R754,193.90.
  • The defendant is to pay the second plaintiff R448,520.90.
  • The defendant shall pay interest on the sums in orders 2 and 3 from 14 days after the date of this order at the prescribed mora rate, if payment is not made within 180 days.
  • The defendant is to pay the plaintiffs' costs of the action, including costs of obtaining the actuarial report, to be agreed or taxed.
  • The defendant shall pay the agreed or taxed costs within 14 days from the date of this order, if payment is not made within 180 days from taxation or agreement.
  • All amounts payable by the defendant to the plaintiffs shall be paid into the trust account of Anton Myburgh Attorneys for the credit and benefit of the plaintiffs.

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.

Source document

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Order

[2022] ZAGPJHC 859

SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy

IN

THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

CASE NO: 26017/2016

REPORTABLE:

NO

OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO

REVISED.

1st November 2022

In the matter between:

STEVENS:

SUSSAN CORNELIA SUSARAH

FIRST PLAINTIFF

BOTES:

SHEREEN

SECOND PLAINTIFF

And

ROAD

ACCIDENT FUND

DEFENDANT

ORDER IN TERMS OF RULE 42

Delivered: This order was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to Parties / their legal representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on Case Lines. The date of the order is deemed to be the 1st November 2022.

TWALA J

[1] On the 31st of October 2022 I handed down the judgment and order in favour of the plaintiffs and ordered the defendant to pay certain sums of money to both the plaintiffs for their claims of loss of support.

[2] It has been brought to my attention by the legal representative for the defendant that, according to the judgment, a 15% contingency was to be applied on the future earnings of the deceased. However, when the order was made, the Court in error, did not apply the 15% contingency deduction on the future earnings of the deceased as it appears on the judgment in orders 1 and 2 of the judgment.

[3] With hindsight and as an extra precaution, I have realised that, except to mention in the judgment that the defendant is 100% liable for the proven damages of the first plaintiff, I did not make an order in this regard.

[4] In correcting the order of the 31st October 2022 in terms of Rule 42 of the Uniformed Rules of Court, I therefore amend the judgment by introducing a new order which should read as follows:

[5] In the circumstances, I make the following order:

1. The defendant is liable for 100% of the proven damages of the first plaintiff;

2. The defendant is to pay the first plaintiff a sum of R754 193.90 (Seven Hundred and Fifty-Four Thousand and One Hundred and Ninety-Three Rand and Ninety Cent);

3. The defendant is to pay the second plaintiff the sum R448 520.90 (Four Hundred and Forty-Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Rand and Ninety Cent);

4. The defendant shall pay interest on the sums mentioned in 2 and 3 above from 14 days after the date of this order at the prescribed morae rate of interest applicable from time to time, if payment of the amounts mentioned in 2 and 3 above is not made within 180 days of this order;

5. The defendant is to pay the plaintiffs’ costs of the action including costs of obtaining the actuarial report, which costs are to be agreed or taxed;

6. The defendant shall pay the agreed or taxed costs of the plaintiffs within 14 days from the date of this order, if payment thereof is not made within 180 days from the date of taxation or agreement;

7. All the amounts payable by defendant to the plaintiffs shall be paid into the Trust Account of the plaintiffs’ attorneys: Anton Myburgh Attorneys; Nedbank, Three Rivers Branch, Vereeniging, Account No: [....] for the credit and benefit of the plaintiffs.

TWALA

M L

JUDGE

OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG

LOCAL DIVISION

Date of Correction: 1st November 2022

Date of Delivery:

1st November 2022

For the Plaintiffs:

Mr AS Myburgh

Instructed by:

Anton Myburgh Attorneys

Tel: 082 312 9323

antonmyb@gmail.com

For the Respondent: Advocate M Khan

Instructed by:

State Attorney

Tel: 071 167 0671

muzafhark@raf.co.za

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Road Accident Fund v Guedes 2006 (5) SA 583 (SCA)

Case cited

Rule 42 of the Uniform Rules of Court

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.