Internationally renowned football coach, Pitso Mosimane, and his wife Moira Tlhagale have challenged their former domestic worker to prove that she became borderline disabled and lost her ability to fall pregnant after she fell while removing debris from their residence.
Dorothy Sikirivao has dragged Mosimane and Tlhagale to the Johannesburg High Court, where she is demanding a whopping R5.7-million in damages for the injuries she claims she sustained.
In the court papers we have seen, Sikirivao says that she was involved in a freak accident at Mosimane and Tlhagale’s house in Johannesburg while removing debris at the
behest of the couple on April 26, 2021.
Sikirivao said that while removing debris, she fell on her back and sustained spine-related injuries. She said she was taken to a hospital at the behest of the couple for medical treatment. She said she later consulted with other specialists in orthopaedic and spine treatment.
These specialists, she said, diagnosed her with several injuries, which include a crack in the skull, blood clots in the brain, dislocation of the shoulder, fracture in the upper backbone, fracture in the mid-backbone, fracture in the lower backbone, pressure on the spinal cord, dislocation of the hip, dislocation of the right leg and other injuries.
As a result of the injuries, Sikirivao was placed on sick leave by the couple from April 26, 2021, to May 22, 2021. When Sikirivao returned to work on or about May 25, 2021, she
could not continue working
effectively.
She said her injuries became worse when Mosimane and his wife ignored the advice of the specialist medical practitioners and coerced her into continuing to work in very physically exacting conditions, including driving.
She said a medical practitioner said that as a result of the accident, she may never be able to carry a pregnancy and fulfil her desire to have her
biological children except through surrogacy.
In their responding affidavit, Mosimane and his wife pooh poohed Sikirivao’s version of events and challenged her to produce evidence to support her claims.
“In amplification of the aforesaid denial, but without limiting the generality thereof, the defendants specifically deny the alleged incident as pleaded or otherwise, that the plaintiff suffered any damages, as alleged or at all,” read the papers.
Mosimane and Tlhagale also denied they owned the property on which the alleged accident occurred and threw down the gauntlet to Sikirivao to
produce evidence to substantiate her claims.
They also rubbished Sikirivao’s claims that they
instructed her to remove the debris.
“In amplification of the aforesaid denial, but without limiting the generality thereof, the defendants specifically deny that the plaintiff was instructed by either of the defendants to remove any debris from renovation works, and the plaintiff is put to the proof thereof,” read the papers.
The two also poured cold water on Sikirivao’s claim that she was employed by both of them, saying she was employed by Tlhagale.
“Consequently, the defendants plead that the second defendant’s joinder in this action constitutes a misjoinder,” read the papers.
Mosimane and Tlhagale said that although Sikirivao informed them that she had slipped and fell, she told them she sustained minor injuries.
“The defendants specifically deny the alleged extent of the alleged injuries and puts the plaintiff to the proof thereof. The defendants specifically deny ignoring any medical
recommendations, the allegations of coercion, or that the plaintiff was unable to execute her duties.”
They also stated that they paid for medical treatment as a cautionary measure and a gesture of goodwill without admitting any liability.
Mosimane and Tlhagale said if the court could conclude that they were negligent, their negligence did not cause or contribute to the occurrence of the
alleged incident or the alleged injuries.
They said Sikirivao also
contributed to the accident
because she failed to keep a proper lookout.
“She failed to avoid an incident when, with the exercise of reasonable care and skill, she should and could have done so.
She failed to take cognisance of the clearly visible nature of her immediate surroundings, including the surface of the premises she was walking on,” they stated in the papers.
Wherefore, they said, the court should dismiss her case.
“Alternatively, the amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff be reduced in terms of Section 1 of the Apportionment of Damages Act, Act 34 of 1956, to such an extent as may seem just and equitable, having regard to the plaintiff’s and defendants’ degree of negligence.”
Visit SW YouTube Channel for our video content
