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

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

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.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 859
Parties
Plaintiff: Sussan Cornelia Susarah Stevens; Plaintiff: Shereen Botes; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 November 2022
Case Number
26017/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Correction of Judgment/order Under Rule 42
Outcome
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.
Judges
Twala M L
Legal Topics
Loss of Support, Contingency Deduction, Rule 42 Correction, Mora Interest
Civil Procedure Delict Loss of Support Contingency Deduction Rule 42 Correction Mora Interest

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

Parties

Sussan Cornelia Susarah Stevens

Plaintiff

Shereen Botes

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Correction of Judgment/order Under Rule 42

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the original order failed to apply the 15% contingency deduction on future earnings as stated in the judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the order omitted to declare the defendant 100% liable for the proven damages of the first plaintiff.

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.

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.