Mohale v Board Of Trustees, Raleigh Fitkin Memorial Hospital (646 of 2006) [2007] SZIC 70 (6 March 2007)

FOR APPLICANT FOR RESPONDENT

MR. N. MTHETHWA NO APPEARANCE

JUDGEMENT 06.03.07

[1] This is an unopposed application brought by the applicant against the

respondent,

[2] In terms of the return of service, the respondent was served on the

26^th November 2006.

[3] No reply was filed by the respondent.

[41 The applicant led evidence on oath in support of the application. His

evidence was unchallenged, as the application was not opposed.

[5] He told the court that he is not employed. He said he was once

employed by the respondent as an ambulance driver. On the 26^th March 2004 he was on duty driving the ambulance and was carrying members of staff of the respondent.

[6] He was driving along the Manzini - Mbabane Highway. Whilst at or

near Madoda Garage a certain motor vehicle veered from its side of the road in the opposite direction and crashed into the ambulance. He got injured and was taken to Mbabane Government Hospital. As he had sustained severe injuries, he was thereafter transferred to the Republic of South Africa,

He came back and was again admitted at the Mbabane Government Hospital. A doctor's report was prepared which showed that the applicant had suffered hundred percent loss of earring capacity arising from the disablement. The report is marked annexure "B".

There was no dispute that the accident was an employment accident as provided by section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act No.7 of 1983.

The amount of compensation due to the applicant was calculated by the office of the Commissioner of Labour and fixed at E113,762.34. This amount was not disputed by the respondent.

The respondent has not however, paid this amount to the applicant.

The applicant therefore prays to the court that judgement be entered in its favour in terms of prayers a), b) and c} of the application.

Taking into account all the evidence led by the applicant before the court, the application being unopposed by the respondent, the court will grant an order in terms of prayers a) and b) of the application.

Since the application was not opposed by the respondent, the court will not make an order for costs against the respondent.

[14]

The members agree.

NKOSINATHI NKONYANE A.J. INDUSTRIAL COURT