Ubisi v Road Accident Fund (31563/2014) [2018] ZAGPPHC 453 (13 February 2018)

Ubisi v Road Accident Fund (31563/2014) [2018] ZAGPPHC 453 (13 February 2018)

The court found that the plaintiff's employment history was contradictory but accepted that he was gainfully employed in various capacities prior to the accident. The court held that the 20% contingency deduction for pre-accident earnings was reasonable, rejecting the plaintiff's argument for a lower deduction. For post-accident earnings, the court accepted expert evidence that the plaintiff's injuries significantly curtailed his career options and rendered him an unequal competitor in the open labour market. The court increased the contingency deduction to 50% for post-accident earnings, finding this fair in light of the plaintiff's resilience and the expert consensus. The court accepted...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 453
Parties
Plaintiff: Mbongiseni Ubisi; Defendant: Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 February 2018
Case Number
31563/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Quantification of Damages After Liability Resolved
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff; damages and costs awarded as specified.
Judges
Petersen
Legal Topics
Road Accident Fund Act, Loss of Earning Capacity, Contingency Deductions, General Damages
Delict Civil Procedure Road Accident Fund Act Loss of Earning Capacity Contingency Deductions 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mbongiseni Ubisi

Plaintiff

Road Accident Fund

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Quantification of Damages After Liability Resolved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate contingency deduction to apply to the plaintiff's past and future loss of income?
  2. 2 Is the plaintiff entitled to general damages and future medical expenses under section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act?
  3. 3 How should conflicting evidence regarding the plaintiff's employment history and earning capacity be resolved?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's employment history was contradictory but accepted that he was gainfully employed in various capacities prior to the accident. The court held that the 20% contingency deduction for pre-accident earnings was reasonable, rejecting the plaintiff's argument for a lower deduction. For post-accident earnings, the court accepted expert evidence that the plaintiff's injuries significantly curtailed his career options and rendered him an unequal competitor in the open labour market. The court increased the contingency deduction to 50% for post-accident earnings, finding this fair in light of the plaintiff's resilience and the expert consensus. The court accepted...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff; damages and costs awarded as specified.

Orders

  • The Plaintiff is entitled to 80% of his proven/agreed damages.
  • The Defendant must pay the Plaintiff R450,000 as general damages, R42,178 as past loss of income, and R563,000 as future loss of income into the Plaintiff's Attorneys Trust Account.