The following are extracts from various judgments in cases where Stan Bezuidenhout testified:

This is  an  extract  from  an  actual judgement  that  was  recorded  in the Goodwood (Cape Town) Court:

The  following is  an  extract  from the final  verdict,  by His.  Hon.  Mr.  Marais,  a Magistrate in  the Bellville  Court, in Cape Town. In this matter we were called  only to  testify  as  general  eye  witnesses,  but after  the  opposing   team  insisted  on asking  for  expert  opinion,  and  after  the court approved  that we  may  answer, we gave  our  opinion.  This  is  part  of  the judgement,  as  it  was  read  by  the Magistrate, after the case was concluded:

“Now  I  have  heard  many,  many, many  a hundred,  a  thousand  accidents  in  this court  in  the  past  fifteen  years.  So, although I would never give myself out as an  expert,  I  have  heard  how  many accidents happened and  why or the way that  is  described,  makes absolutely  a sense…

Now the evidence  of Mr. Bezuidenhout, I must  admit  is  probably  the  best  I  have heard  in  many  years.  I  have  heard  how many  experts  testifying  in  this  court, some  good,  some  bad.  I  have  heard seven  people,  so-called  experts,  come and  testify  as  to  the  reconstruction  of accidents afterwards. This one  professor from  Stellenbosch  who  made  sort  of  a good  impression  on  the  Court,  but  not brilliant,  but  I  must  admit,  this  witness who testified today, is taking the cake by far.  He  clearly  is  head  and  shoulders above  all  other  experts  I  have  seen  in court.

Although  he  did  not  testify as  an expert today, the evidence that he gave is so  clear  and  precise  that  the  Court cannot find any mistake whatsoever with that. While  he  gave  his  evidence,  he  did  not want to  venture into any assumptions or conclusions that he  had  drawn  in cross-examination,  he  was  pressed  to  make them and only after the Court said if that is the case, you can go ahead and  make them,  he  made  those  conclusions  and they,  unfortunately  make  a  hundred percent sense.

I  cannot  say any  reason  why  the  Court should not accept them. To come and say afterwards,  but  you cannot  say that that is the glass that was lying there was from this accident or that you cannot say there was  not  other  glass.  He  gave  his explanation  and  his  explanation  is  very clear that there was no other glass and it is very clear that that glass, he explained why  it  would  have  been  there,  why  it would not have been in the front car, why it would  not  have been at another place. As  I  say,  all  the  evidence  regarding  the possible point  of  impact, there is  clearly no  reason  why  the  Court  should  not accept  that,  not  even  a  hint  of  a suggestion that I cannot accept it.”


This is  an  extract  from  an  actual judgement  that  was  recorded  in the High Court in Pretoria on 8 March 2016:

The  following is  an  extract  from the final  verdict,  by His.  Hon.  AJ Olivier,  an acting judge in the High Court, Gauteng Division, Pretoria. In this matter we were called  to  testify  as Expert  witnesses for the plaintiff. This  is  part  of  the judgement:

“I now turn to the evidence of Mr. Bezuidenhout, who used certain photographs as one of the bases of his report…

The expert witness performed well under sustained cross-examination. He conceded several points during cross-examination, including that the damage to the vehicle of the plaintiff could have been caused by something other than a collision with another vehicle. He was truthful. He carefully considered his answers. Considering the totality of his evidence, OI deem him to be a credible witness…

The expert should be independent, and uninfluenced by the party calling him as an expert witness in support of his or her case. In Shneider NO and Others vs Aspeling and Another 2010 (5) SA 203 (WCC) at 211-212, Davis J provided a summary of the duty and role of the expert:

In short, an expert comes to court to give the court the benefit of his or her expertise. Agreed, an expert is called by a particular party presumably because the conclusion of the expert, using his or her expertise, is in favor of the line of argument of the particular party. But that does not absolve the expert from providing the court with as objective and unbiased an opinion, based on his or her expertise, as is possible. An expert is not a hired gun who dispenses his or her  expertise for the purposes of a particular case. An expert does not assume the role of advocate, nor give evidence which goes beyond the logic which is dictated by scientific knowledge which that expert claims to possess.

In my opinion the expert was sufficiently independent for me not to exclude his evidence. I accept his evidence and his conclusions.”


This is  an  extract  from  an  actual judgement  that  was  recorded  in the High Court in Pretoria on 17 May 2017:

The  following is  an  extract  from the final  verdict,  by His.  Hon.  Mr. M B Mahalelo,  an acting judge in the High Court, Gauteng Division, Pretoria. In this matter we were called  to  testify  as Expert  witnesses for the plaintiff. This  is  part  of  the judgement:

“The defendant conceded that Mr. Bezuidenhout was an expert for the purpose for which he was called. Mr. Bezuidenhout testified in a straightforward and forthright manner. His expert opinion was in line with all the factual testimony given by both the plaintiff and the insured driver. He did not contradict himself nor were there any external contradictions in his testimony. Mr. Bezuidenhout was an exemplary witness on all accounts. On the other hand, the insured driver stated exactly the opposite as to how the collision occurred compared to the plaintiff. He was, however, not an impressive witness.”