Tekete and Others v Minister of Safety and Security

The matter concerns a claim for loss of support by the widow and two children of Mr Johannes Tekete (the deceased). On 2 October 2005, the deceased was shot by a member of the South African Police Service in Khayelitsha, Cape Town. He later died on 31 December 2005 as a result of his injuries. The deceased was married in community of property to the First Plaintiff (Mrs Nosisana Mercy Tekete) and was the father of the Second and Third Plaintiffs. At the time of his death, the deceased was employed as a casual kitchen hand at Het Bakhuys, earning R250 per day. He had previously been employed as a police officer (Special Constable and later Constable) but had been dismissed. Liability had already been determined in favour of the Plaintiffs (Samela J, 12 December 2019), and the matter proceeded solely on the determination of quantum.

• What was the deceased's probable career path and income trajectory, but for his death?
• What portion of the deceased's income should be allocated for the loss of support to each dependent?
• What is the appropriate age of dependency for the Second and Third Plaintiffs?
• Whether a remarriage contingency should be applied in respect of the First Plaintiff's claim.
• What general contingency deductions are fair and reasonable for past and future loss of support?

The matter was adjourned sine die. The court directed the parties to instruct ARCH Actuarial Consulting CC to calculate the loss of support for the Plaintiffs on specified parameters, including the deceased's income trajectory, the First Plaintiff's income of R1,350 per month, a dependency age of 18 years for the children, and general contingencies of 5% for past loss and 10% for future loss. The matter is to be re-enrolled upon receipt of the actuarial report to deal with remaining issues on quantum and costs. Costs stood over for later determination.

In assessing loss of support, the court must exercise a wide judicial discretion based on a balance of probabilities, considering the deceased's probable career progression based on all the evidence, not merely the circumstances of other employees who remained in the same position. The earning capacity of a deceased breadwinner is to be assessed on a realistic projection of what they would have earned, with due regard to expert evidence. In the absence of sufficient evidence to justify dependency beyond the age of majority, the age of 18 years is the appropriate cut-off for a child's loss of support claim. General contingencies of 5% (past) and 10% (future) are typically fair and reasonable in loss of support claims where no special circumstances justify a different deduction.

The court observed that in determining dependency age, majority is not the determining factor; a parent's duty to support a child does not cease at a particular age but usually when the child becomes self-supporting (citing Mfomadi v RAF and Hulley v Cox). However, because the Second and Third Plaintiffs did not testify and insufficient information was on record, the court could not conclude that dependency should extend to 21 years. The court also noted that the issue of costs, including the effect of a Calderbank Offer and amended Rule 67A considerations, was to be held over for later determination.

This judgment provides a detailed application of the principles governing the assessment of quantum in dependants' claims for loss of support, particularly regarding the projection of a deceased breadwinner's probable career path using expert industrial psychology evidence. It clarifies the approach to determining the dependency age of children, emphasising that evidence is required to justify extending dependency beyond 18 years. The case also discusses the application of general contingencies and the modern approach to remarriage contingencies in loss of support claims.