Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
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 NORTH WEST HIGH COURT
MAFIKENG
CASE NO.: 523/2009
In the matter between:
PHUTI PETRUS NTLHANE Plaintiff
and
THE ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Defendant
CIVIL MATTER
KGOELE J
DATE OF HEARING : 05 MARCH 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 09 MAY 2013
FOR THE PLANTIFF : Adv. A.P.J Bouwer
FOR THE DEFENDANT : Adv. N.S. Petla
JUDGMENT
2
KGOELE J:
[1] On the 29 February 2008, the plaintiff, Mr Ntlhane was a passenger in
a Nissan Sentra, which was involved in a collision at an intersection on
the Sun City / Rustenburg road.
[2] He lost consciousness on impact of the collision and woke up about
+- 60 minutes later at Rustenburg hospital, where he was examined,
X-rayed, placed on a drip and admitted for one night. He was
transferred thereafter to to Garankuwa hospital for specialist
treatment.
[3] He sustained injuries mainly to his chest, lower back and head (behind
the left ear). He was treated as Garankuwa hospital for about 12 days
and then discharged. He recuperated at home for about three days
before resuming his studies at the Tshwane University of Technology,
where he was enrolled as a full time student, studying Electrical
Engineering.
[4] On his return, he had to write the semester tests and failed four of his
six subjects. He described that he found it difficult to focus mentally,
that he re-experienced the trauma and further that he found it difficult
to remain seated for extended periods because of the pain and
discomfort in his back. He also failed the May examinations and then
decided to discontinue his studies. He then worked as a stock
controller at Game. At present, he is an assistant driver at Simba in
Isando.
3
[5] According to the report of the orthopaedic surgeon, Dr A M Matime,
the patient suffered a head injury with loss of consciousness and
amnesia, laceration on the left posterior side of the head, chest
contusion and soft tissue injuries to his lower back and left flank.
The occupational therapist, Mrs C Motake, stated that Mr Ntlhane has
lower back pains symptoms which impact on his ability to perform
heavy physical work. According to the neurosurgeon, Dr S M
Mokgokong, Mr Ntlhane suffered a mild head injury, with moderate
concussion in the accident. Complaints of headaches, memory
problems and behaviour changes were noted in the report of Dr
Mokgokong.
[6] He reported the following problems to the various specialists:-
Headaches: Mr Ntlhane reported that since the accident, he
suffers from headaches about every day. These are
alleviated by pain killers (stop-pain)
Back ache: He has back pains when he bends over or carries
heavy stuff.
Sleeping Problems: He experiences interrupted sleep
Concentration problems: He finds it difficult to focus and
concentrate since the accident and gets
tired after reading a few pages.
Short temperedness: He is impatient, irritable, and angers quickly
4
Social withdrawal: Since the accident he finds social interaction
more difficult than before and tends to
withdraw.
[7] Advocate Bouwer for the plaintiff, and Advocate Petla for the
defendant, agreed at the commencement of the trial that:-
there is already a court order made by this court on the 21st
September 2011 that the defendant conceded hundred percent
(100%) of the merits in favour of the plaintiff;
costs previously reserved regarding the merits were settled in
the pre-trial minutes;
quantum for general damages is settled at an amount of
R250 000-00;
defendant accepted to deliver to the plaintiff a full undertaking in
terms of Section 17(4) of the Road Accident Fund Act No. 56 of
1966;
only the quantum of past and future loss of income is in dispute;
reports by Dr Von Bormann, Dr Earle, Mr Mills, Dr Fine, Mrs
Motake and Mr Truter were accepted during the pre-trial
conference and the reports of the two industrial psychologists
namely Mr Malaka and Thandiwe Gama are in dispute;
both parties agreed on the basis the actuary used to calculate
the estimate for the loss of income including the general
contingency deductions thereof that are depicted in the three
scenarios in his report
both parties will not call any witnesses or expert and will only
make submissions to the court as to which scenario the court
5
should choose in determining the award for loss of income from
the results of calculations as depicted in the three scenarios.
[8] The Joint Minutes of the two industrial psychologists was accepted as
exhibit and was marked exhibit “A”. The report by the Actuary Mr
Johan Potgieter is marked exhibit “B”.
[9] The Actuary Report was couched as follows:-
“Claimant: Mr P Ntlhane Date of Accident: 29/02/2008
Date of Calculation: 05/03/2013 Page 1
ACTUARIAL REPORT
CALCULATION OF LOSS OF INCOME
1. INSTRUCTION
Mr P Ntlhane allegedly sustained injuries in a road accident on 29 February 2008.
Gildenhuys Malatji Attorneys requested me to estimate the expected present value of his
income to beused as a guide to determine a lump sum award for fair compensation for loss
of income or earning capacity suffered by Mr Ntlhane. This report summarises the
information provided and assumptions made. The present value is calculated as at 5
March 2013.
1.1 Income had the accident not occurred:
I was instructed to assume that, had the accident not occurred, Mr Ntlhane’s income
would have been as follows (all amounts are shown in July 2013 terms):
He would have completed his diploma in December 2010 and a B-Tech Degree in
December 2011
He would have started working on 1 January 2012, earning R120’000 per year (median basic
salary Paterson B3)
Thereafter, increasing in a straight line until reaching R433’000 per year (average median
packages Paterson C4 and C5) at age 45
Thereafter, increasing with inflation until retirement at age 65.
1.2 Income having regard to the accident:
6
I was instructed to assume that, having regard to the accident, Mr Ntlhane’s income would be as
follows:
He started working on 1 October 2008, earning R61’770 per year
(R25’390,74+R1’930,41)x52/23 in 2012 terms)
Increasing with inflation until the present
In future:
o Scenario TG,
No further income until 31 December 2015 (in order to complete studies)
From 1 January 2016, an income of earning R120’000 per year (median basic salary
Paterson B3)
Thereafter, increasing in a straight line until reaching:
Scenario TG1:
o R337’000 per year (median package Paterson C3) at page 48
Scenario TG2:
o R433’000 per year (average median packages Paterson C4 and C5) at age 48
o Scenario MM:
No further income until 31 December 2016 (in order to complete studies)
From 1 January 2017, an income of earning R120’000 per year (median basic salary
Paterson B3)
Thereafter, increasing in a straight line until reaching R217’000 per year (median package
Paterson B5) at age 50
Thereafter, increasing with inflation until retirement at age 65.
1.3 General contingency deduction:
I was instructed to apply the following general contingency deductions:
Past Income Future Income
Had the accident not occurred 5% 20%
7
Having regard to the accident 5% 32,5%
2. BASIS OF CALCULATION AND ASSUMPTIONS
2.1 Earnings inflation:
Historical evidence suggests that earnings inflation exceeded price inflation by between
½% and 2% per year over the long-term. For the purposes of the calculation, I allowed for
earnings inflation of 1% above price inflation. Price inflation was assumed to be equal to
the increase in the CPI-index from the accident date until December 2012 and 5% per
year thereafter. This implies that I assumed earnings inflation of 6% per year in future.
2.2 Income tax:
I applied the relevant income tax tables to past income. In respect of future income, I
applied the 2013/14 income tax tables, adjusted to allow for earnings inflation.
2.3 Method of calculation:
I calculated the present value of income, had the accident not occurred, by discounting the
net projected income discussed in 1.1 above, allowing for interest and Mr Ntlhane’s
probability of survival. The present value of income, having regard to the accident, was
similarly calculated by discounting the net projected income discussed in 1.2 above. The
loss of income was taken as the difference between the above-mentioned present values,
after allowing for the contingency deductions shown in 1.3 above.
2.4 Age and longevity:
Mr Ntlhane was born on 30 May 1988. I assumed that his future chance of survival is
similar to the Life table 3 (Males) Quantum Yearbook 2013.
2.5 Rate of interest for discounting purposes:
The present value of past income was simply taken as the income between the accident and
calculation dates without allowing for interest. In order to allow for the investment income
that could be earned on the lump sum award, I discounted the projected future income
back to the date of calculation at a net discount rate of 2,5% per year. The net discount
rate of 2,5% per year in conjunction with the earnings inflation described in 2.1 above
imply an assumed investment return of 8,65% per year.
2.6 Disability benefits:
I did not deduct any disability or ill-health retirement benefits because no information was
given in this regard.
8
3. RESULTS OF CALCULATIONS
I calculated the present value of the loss of income to be as follows as at 05/03/2013:
Scenario TG1
Past Income
Future Income
Total Income
Income if accident did not occur 132’229 5’938’497 6’070’726
Less contingency deduction 6’611
125’618
1’187’699
4’750’798
1’194’310
4’876’416
Income given accident did occur 248’655 4’252’554 4’501’209
Less contingency deduction 12’433
236’222
1’382’080
2’870’474
1’394’513
3’106’696
Loss of Income -110’604 1’880’324 1’769’720
Scenario TG2
Past
Income
Future
Income
Total
Income
Income if accident did not occur 132’229 5’938’497 6’070’726
Less contingency deduction 6’611
125’618
1’187’699
4’750’798
1’194’310
4’876’416
Income given accident did occur 248’655 5’066’805 5’315’460
Less contingency deduction 12’433
236’222
1’646’71
3’420’093
1’659’145
3’656’315
Loss of Income -110’604 1’330’705 1’220’101
9
Scenario MM
Past
Income
Future
Income
Total
Income
Income if accident did not occur 132’229 5’938’497 6’070’726
Less contingency deduction 6’611
125’618
1’187’699
4’750’798
1’194’310
4’876’416
Income given accident did occur 248’655 2’993’648 3’242’303
Less contingency deduction 12’433
236’222
972’936
2’020’7120
985’369
2’256’934
Loss of Income -110’604 2’730’086 2’619’482
The above figures are merely the calculated expected present value of the assumed loss of income.
No allowance has been made for possible apportionment of merits, possible limitation of the claim
or possible curator fees.
I do not express any opinion on the assumed income, but simply did calculations on the instructed
income.
If the date of settlement is significantly different from the calculation date, adjustments will be
required. If any further evidence becomes available that conflicts with the assumptions used in
this report, additional calculations will be required.
Johan Potgieter
Fellow of the Actuarial Society of South Africa Fellow of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries on
behalf of GRS Actuarial Consulting 5 March 2013”
[10] The industrial psychologists were ad idem on the following aspects
only:
Pre - Accident
that at the time of the accident Mr Ntlhane was studying towards
a three year diploma in Computer System Engineering at
Tshwane University of Technology;
10
that he would have continued with his studies until completion of
his diploma, and probably enter the open labour market upon
completion;
that inflationary increases would have prevailed until normal
retirement 60 – 65 years;
Post Accident
to defer to the Educational Psychologists opinion that Mr
Ntlhane will still complete his diploma in Computer System
Engineering and also communicate that Mr Ntlhane may not
complete the B.Tech degree;
that he is likely to take a bit longer to complete his part time
studies which he is currently doing;
that any time off work due to attending to doctors, undergoing
treatment constitute loss of potential earnings.
[11] An analysis of the three scenarios given to the court reveals that the
results of the calculations by the actuary in as far as the Past income
is concerned is the same in all the three scenarios. The scenarios
only differ in as far as the results of the Future income calculations are
concerned. Therefore this court will only consider the results of
calculations by the actuary in as far as the future income.
[12] Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that because the plaintiff sustained
some brain damages (organic brain damage – probably due to a mild to
moderate head injury) as depicted in the report of Dr L Fine, a
psychiatrist, therefore an amount as depicted in scenario described as
MM in the actuary report should be awarded. He based his
11
submission on the fact that in paragraph 3.3 of the industrial
psychologists’ Joint minute, the two experts agreed and accepted the
Educational Psychologist’s opinion that “Mr Ntlhane will still complete his
diploma in Computer System Engineering and also communicate that Mr
Ntlhane may not complete the B.Tech degree.” He finally maintained that
this court should take into consideration that the contingency to be
deducted in all the scenarios were agreed upon by the parties.
[13] The defendant’s counsel submissions are to the effect that scenario
MM was grafted to enhance the amount therein. Further that, scenario
TG1 depicts the worst situation as recommended by Ms Gama. It is a
situation where a person ordinarily obtains a diploma. This is
according to her submission in the joint minute, unlikely to occur.
Whereas in scenario TG2 Ms Gama envisaged a situation where Mr
Ntlhane had suffered no loss. He indicated that in this scenario the
submission of Ms Gama is to the effect that beside delays that could
be brought in, Mr Ntlhane will get to a level of pre-accident situation,
meaning that he has the capability of reaching normality. He finally
submitted that the amount depicted in scenario TG2 reflects a fair and
equitable amount which this court should award as the plaintiff has not
been affected so much, only time to reach where he would have been
is affected.
[14] I find the following remarks which are found in the case of Southern
Insurance Association Ltd v Bailey No. 1984 (1) SA 98 very helpful
in matters of this nature:-
“Any enquiry into damages for loss of earning capacity is of its nature
speculative, because it involves a prediction as to the future, without the
benefit of crystal balls, soothsayers, augurs or oracles. All that the Court
12
can do is to make an estimate, which is often a very rough estimate, of the
present value of the loss. It has open to it two possible approaches. One is
for the Judge to make a round estimate of an amount which seems to him
to be fair and reasonable. That is entirely a matter of guesswork, a blind
plunge into the unknown. The other is to try to make an assessment, by
way of mathematical calculations, on the basis of assumptions resting on
the evidence. The validity of the approach depends upon the soundness of
the assumptions, and these may vary from the strongly probable to the
speculative. It is manifest that either approach involves guesswork to a
greater or lesser extent. But the Court cannot for this reason adopt a non
possumus attitude and make no award. In a case where the Court has
before it material on which an actuarial calculation can usefully be made,
the first approach does not offer any advantage over the second. On the
contrary, while the result of an actuarial computation may be no more than
an “informed guess”, it has the advantage of an attempt to ascertain the
value of what was lost on a logical basis, whereas the trial Judge’s “gut
feeling” as to what is fair and reasonable is nothing more than a blind
guess. It is true that, in the case of a young child, the assessment of
damages for loss of earnings is speculative in the extreme. Nevertheless,
even in such a case, it is not wrong in principle to make an assessment on
the basis of actuarial calculations.
Where the method of actuarial computation is adopted in assessing
damages for loss of earning capacity, it does not mean that the trial Judge
is “tied down by inexorable actuarial calculations”. He has “a large
discretion to award that he considers right”. One of the elements in
exercising that discretion is the making of a discount for “contingencies” or
the “vicissitudes of life. These includes such matters as the possibility that
the plaintiff may in the result have less than a “normal” expectation of life,
and that he may experience periods of unemployment by reason of
incapacity due to illness or accident, or to labour unrest or general
economic conditions. The amount of any discount may vary, depending
upon the circumstances of the case. The rate of discount cannot, of
course, be assessed on any logical basis: the assessment must be largely
13
arbitrary and must depend upon the trial Judge’s impression of the case. In
making such a discount for “contingencies” or the “vicissitudes of life”. It is,
however, erroneous to regard the fortunes of life as being always adverse:
they may be favourable.”
[15] The conclusions by the educational psychologist Ms Mills which were
admitted by the defendant is to the effect that, Mr Ntlhane’s pre-morbid
functioning was that he performed well at school as he attained
university exemption. He was a motivated and diligent young man,
who was chosen in a leadership position at school. (President of the
Representative Council of Learners). He had the potential to successfully
complete the diploma course, and possibly also the B.Tech Degree.
[16] Post-morbidly, the accident according to Ms Mills, interrupted Mr
Ntlhane’s tertiary education as he missed two weeks of classes, wrote
test and examination and failed as he was suffering from physical,
cognitive and emotional post-concussion symptoms. He still suffers
from headaches, concentration problems, slowed processing speed,
irritability and emotional problems including mild depression,
significantly stress and anxiety due to the accident. According to Ms
Mills, he has been rendered a more vulnerable individual who will
probably function on a slightly lower level than before. He still has the
potential to complete his diploma, however, it is highly unlikely that he
will obtain a B.Tech Degree due to his current difficulties.
[17] According to the industrial phychologist Ms Gama, she finds it
questionable that the educational psychologist can say that Mr Ntlhane
will be able to complete his diploma but not able to complete the B-
Tech if he decides to in future, given the report that he functions at
14
above average educationally. She maintains that he will still reach
these levels, especially if he undertakes the recommended treatment
part-time.
[18] Unfortunately the above submission of Ms Gama loose sight of the
fact that although the educational psychologist said that the findings of
her assessment indicate that Mr Ntlhane is an above average man,
she also, towards the end of her conclusions in as far as his (Mr
Ntlhane) post-morbid functioning is concerned, said the following:- “he
has been rendered a more vulnerable individual who will probably function
on a slightly lower level than before, and further that it is highly unlikely that
he will obtain a B-Tech degree, due to his current difficulties.” This is clear
from reading his report holistically and not in a piecemeal fashion.
[19] Furthermore, the above-mentioned submission does not take
cognisance of the fact that, in their joint minute, Ms Gama and Mr
Malaka are in agreement in the following paragraphs that:-
“3.3We agree to defer to the Educational Psychologist opinion that Mr
Ntlhane will still complete his diploma in Computer Systems
Engineering and also communicates that Mr Ntlhane may not complete
the B-Tech degree
3.5 We note that he is currently working as a driver but has gone back
towards studies on a part-time basis. We agree that he is likely to take
a bit longer to complete his part time studies
3.7We agree that any time off work due to attending to doctors,
undergoing treatment constitute loss of potential earnings. We defer
to medical experts regarding the time period required for treatment
and recuperation”.
15
[20] Of significance is the fact that although Ms Gama opines that Mr
Ntlhane will be able to achieve his pre-morbid functioning, she at the
same time opines that Mr Ntlhane will probably reach / achieve this a
bit later in his working life, around age of 47-49. In addition, Ms Gama
as already indicated above, has agreed with Mr Malaka that Mr
Ntlhane is likely to take a bit longer to complete his part-time studies.
All of these are clear indications that Ms Gama at the least
acknowledges the fact that Mr Ntlhane has been affected by the
accident. To function above average differs from being a genius. It
also differs logically from functioning exceptionally well.
[21] From the reports of the Educational psychologists, it is evident that Mr
Ntlhane passed his Matric well after repeating it. He did not repeat
Matric because he failed according to the report, but because he
wanted to improve his marks and eventually as he desired, obtained a
University entrance level, an exemption. Immediately after accident
he failed significantly the test and examination in as far as his Diploma
studies are concerned. This clearly illustrate that his performance
educationally has been affected. That is why both industrial
psychologists agreed that he will take longer to complete his part-time
studies. If this is the case, a question as to whether he will complete
his B-Tech if the register it becomes more questionable.
[22] A Diploma study and a Degree study are generally in life not accorded
the same status. That is why their entry level requirements are not the
same. A degree requires a higher entrance level. Once it has been
accepted that Mr Ntlhane has been somehow affected by the accident
in his mental capabilities, it goes without saying that he will struggle to
complete his Diploma studies. In my view, it is highly possible that he
16
may not complete or obtain his B-Tech degree. This is the conclusion
which the only educational psychologists, Ms Mills has arrived at,
which I also find to be more probable. The opinion of Ms Gama that
Mr Ntlhane will be able to complete the B-Tech degree if his poor
motivational levels can be addressed through proper interventions is
therefore without merit. It is a known and established fact that people
may react differently from treatment / interventions they undergo.
[23] I therefore prefer scenario MM to be the one that represent a fair and
equitable amount that reflect the loss of earning of the plaintiff. Both
scenario TG1 and TG2 are rejected as they have been based on the
facts and opinion which are baseless. In addition, they appear to have
not even taken into consideration the inflation increase until Mr
Ntlhane reaches retirement at age 65, as depicted in the actuary
report, which fact had been agreed upon by the two industrial
psychologists in their joint minute.
[24] Consequently the following order is made:-
24.1 The Defendant is liable for 100% of the agreed or proven
damages of the Plaintiff as per the previous Court Order and the
reserved costs are herewith unreserved by agreement and will
be High Court Costs on the scale as between party and party;
24.2 The merits costs as previously reserved, and now unreserved,
will be taxed or agreed upon, as part of the bill of costs
pertaining to the aspect of quantum which is settled herewith;
24.3 The Defendant will compensate the Plaintiff in respect of the
issue of damages, which will be considered the full and final
settlement in respect of the damages suffered, as follows:
17
24.3.1 The Defendant is to pay the Plaintiff a Capital Amount of
R2 869 482,00 (TWO MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED AND
SIXTY NINE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND EIGHTY
TWO RAND) which amount shall be paid into the trust
account of Gildenhuys Lessing Malatji Incorporated, ABSA
Bank, Brooklyn Branch, Account Number 4……………,
Branch Code………under Reference: RPH/G
ERASMUS/01671553;
24.3.2 The capital amount shall be paid into the above-mentioned
trust account of Gildenhuys Lessing Malatji Incorporated
within 14 (FOURTEEN) days from the date of this order;
24.3.3 Should the Defendant fail to make payment of the capital
within 14 (FOURTEEN) days from the date hereof, the
Defendant will be liable for interest on the amount due to the
Plaintiff at a rate of 15,5% per annum, from the 15th
(FIFTEENTH) day from the date of this order, to the date of
final payment;
24.3.4 The Defendant is to deliver to the Plaintiff an full Undertaking
in terms of Section 17(4)(a) of the Road Accident Fund Act No
56 of 1996 to pay the Plaintiff’s costs and expenses of future
accommodation in a hospital or associated frail care facility
and any other assistance as suggested by the experts in the
respective medico-legal reports inclusive of further treatment
inclusive but not limited to a nursing home, or treatment of, or
rendering of a service or supplying of goods to her, arising out
18
of the above-mentioned injuries sustained by her in the motor
vehicle collision on 29 February 2008, and to pay after such
costs have been incurred and upon proof thereof;
24.3.5 The Undertaking in terms of Section 17(4)(a) shall be delivered
to Gildenhuys Lessing Malatji Incorporated within 14
(FOURTEEN) days from the date of this order.
24.4 The Defendant is ordered to pay the Plaintiff's Plaintiff’s party and
party costs of suit in respect of the determination of the issue of liability
and quantum on the High Court scale, which costs include (but not be
limited to):
24.4.1 The costs of obtaining the medico-legal-, and actuarial reports,
addendum reports and any joint reports, as well as the
qualifying- and reservation fees (if any), of the following
experts:
24.4.1.1 Prof. Mokgophong (Neuro-Surgeon)
24.4.1.2 Dr AM Matime (Orthopaedic Surgeon);
24.4.1.3 Ms C Motake (Occupational Therapist);
24.4.1.4 Mr K Truter (Clinical Psychologist);
24.4.1.5 Dr L Fine (Psychiatrist);
24.4.1.6 Ms M Mills (Educational Psychologist);
24.4.1.7 Dr M Malaka (Industrial Psychologist);
24.4.1.8 Mr J Potgieter (GRS Actuarial Consulting);
24.4.2 The attendance and associated costs pertaining to the
attendance of any experts, attorneys and counsel to Court;
19
24.4.3 The reasonable taxable costs of transporting the injured to
his various medico-legal examinations;
24.4.4 The costs of the preparation of 6 trial bundles agreed
between the parties at the Pre-Trial Conference;
24.4.5 The costs of counsel;
24.4.6 The reasonable costs of attorney, which includes
reasonable travelling costs, costs for preparing for Pre-Trial
Conferences and costs for actual attendances to Pre-Trial
Conferences;
24.4.7 The reasonable costs for preparation for trial;
24.4.8 The Plaintiff is to be declared necessary witnesses;
24.4.9 The reasonable costs occasions in respect of travelling,
travelling time and accommodation, if applicable,
occasioned by any party declared a necessary witness;
[25] Should the Defendant fail to pay the Plaintiff’s party and party costs as
taxed or agreed with 14 (fourteen) days from the date of taxation,
alternatively date of settlement of such costs, the Defendant shall be
liable to pay interest at a rate of 15.5% per annum, such costs as from
and including the date of taxation, alternatively the date of settlement
of such costs up to and including the date of final payment thereof.
[26] The Plaintiff shall, in the event that the parties are not in agreement as
to the costs referred to in paragraph 4 above, serve the notice of
20
taxation on the Defendant’s attorneys and shall allow the Defendant
seven court days to make payment of the taxed costs.
[27] The taxed or agreed costs, as referred to above, shall be paid into the
trust account of Gildenhuys Malatji Incorporated, ABSA Bank,
Brooklyn Branch, Account Number 40……………., Branch Code
3…………. under Reference: RPH/G ERASMUS/01671553
________________ A M KGOELE JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
ATTORNEYS:
For the Plaintiff : Geldenhuys Lessing Malatjie Inc. C/O Labuschagne Attorneys 10 Tillard Street MAHIKENG For the Defendant : Kenana Hlatshwayo Radebe Inc C/O Kgomo Mokhetle & Tlou Attorneys KMT Building No. 56 Shippard Street MAHIKENG
