Ampath Trust (Pty) Limited v Compensation Commissioner and Others (53352/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1216 (20 September 2023)
- Citation
- [2023] ZAGPPHC 1216
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Mooki
- Case number
- 53352/2021
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Mooki
- Case number
- 53352/2021
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the defendants did not effect a valid amendment to their plea as required by Rule 28, since no amended pages were delivered. Consequently, the defendants were restricted to the defences in their original plea. The court found that the defendants failed to substantiate their denial of the plaintiff's claim, particularly regarding compliance with statutory tariffs and validation of claims. The issues raised by the defendants did not amount to genuine triable issues, and the claim was found to be a liquidated amount suitable for summary judgment. The court was bound by previous decisions confirming the liquidated nature of such claims under COIDA. Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.
Court disposition
Summary judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff.
Orders
- Judgment is rendered in favour of the plaintiff in the amount of R1,765,126.00.
- Interest on each Medical Account set out in Annexure 'POC2' to the particulars of claim at the prescribed legal rate, calculated from the date of acceptance of each claim as set out in Annexure 'POC2'.
- Costs awarded to the plaintiff.
02
Material facts
Parties
Ampath Trust (Pty) Limited
Plaintiff Counsel: C J WelgemoedCompensation Commissioner
Defendant Counsel: M MakhubelaDirector-General in the Department of Labour
Defendant Counsel: M MakhubelaMinister of Employment and Labour
Defendant Counsel: M MakhubelaAmounts and remedies
- Judgment Amount: ZAR 1,765,126
03
Procedural history
Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment After Plea and Notice of Intention to Amend
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the defendants effected a valid amendment to their plea in terms of Rule 28.
- 02
Whether the opposition to summary judgment can rely on defences not contained in the original plea.
- 03
Whether the plaintiff's claim is for a liquidated amount and complies with statutory requirements under COIDA.
- 04
Whether the defendants have raised genuine triable issues sufficient to defeat summary judgment.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The plaintiff argued that the defendants did not properly amend their plea as required by Rule 28, since no amended pages were delivered. The plaintiff contended that all statutory requirements under COIDA were met, including compliance with tariff amounts, and that the claims were processed and validated by the first defendant. The plaintiff sought summary judgment for the reduced amount, reflecting payments already made.
- Respondent
- The defendants argued that the amendment was effected by the notice of intention to amend, and that delivery of amended pages was unnecessary. They denied that all medical accounts were submitted or verified, and contended that the claims did not comply with statutory tariffs or were not validated, thus not due or payable. They also raised procedural defences regarding compliance with W.CI.20, section 73 of COIDA, and Rule 10.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Becker v MEC for The Department of Economic Development & Environmental Affairs and Others (3366/2013) [2014] ZAECPEHC 43 (24 June 2014), para 17
An amendment to pleadings is only effected upon delivery of amended pages in compliance with Rule 28(5) and (7); mere delivery of a notice of intention to amend does not suffice.
- 02
Maharaj v Barclays Bank Ltd 1976 (1) SA 418 at 426A-E
Defences raised in opposition to summary judgment must be limited to those contained in the plea.
- 03
Raumix Aggregates (Pty) Ltd v Richter Sand CC and Another 2020 (1) SA 623 (GJ) (4 October 2019), para 16
Summary judgment is intended to dispose of actions that do not raise genuine triable issues, thereby conserving judicial resources.
- 04
Compensation Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Compensation Commissioner and Others (56219/2021 ; 49156/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 572 (18 July 2023); Case number 76034/2018 dated 13 December 2018
Claims for medical aid under COIDA are liquidated amounts and have previously been found suitable for summary judgment.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the defendants did not effect a valid amendment to their plea as required by Rule 28, since no amended pages were delivered. Consequently, the defendants were restricted to the defences in their original plea. The court found that the defendants failed to substantiate their denial of the plaintiff's claim, particularly regarding compliance with statutory tariffs and validation of claims. The issues raised by the defendants did not amount to genuine triable issues, and the claim was found to be a liquidated amount suitable for summary judgment. The court was bound by previous decisions confirming the liquidated nature of such claims under COIDA. Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.
Obiter and limits
- The judgment does not detail every single basis raised by the defendants for resisting summary judgment, but finds that none raise genuine triable issues.
- The court reiterates that it is bound by previous decisions unless they are clearly wrong, which was not the case here.
- The contention that the claim is not a liquidated amount has been previously rejected in similar proceedings.
Court disposition
Summary judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff.
- Judgment is rendered in favour of the plaintiff in the amount of R1,765,126.00.
- Interest on each Medical Account set out in Annexure 'POC2' to the particulars of claim at the prescribed legal rate, calculated from the date of acceptance of each claim as set out in Annexure 'POC2'.
- Costs awarded to the plaintiff.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case No: 53352/2021
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED. NO
SIGNATURE:
DATE: 20 September 2023
In the matter between:
AMPATH TRUST (PTY) LIMITED
Plaintiff
and
THE
COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER
1st Defendant
THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL
2nd Defendant
IN
THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
THE
MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR
3rd Defendant
JUDGEMENT
MOOKI AJ
1 The plaintiff seeks summary judgement. The Defendants filed a plea and, simultaneously, filed a notice of intention to amend. The Defendants oppose summary judgement with reference to contentions in the notice of intention to amend.
2 The plaintiff avers that the defendants did not amend their plea because the defendants did not deliver the amended plea. It was submitted on behalf of the defendants that the amendment was effected because the notice of intention to amend stipulated that the amendment will be effected unless the plaintiff made a written objection within 10 days of delivery of the notice. It was also submitted that there was no need to deliver the amended plea because the amendment would be the same as set out in the notice of intention to amend.
3 There is no amendment absent compliance with Rule 28(5) read with sub- rule (7). An amendment must be effected. The filing of a notice of intention to amend without more does not effect an amendment. That
is the case even where the other party to the litigation does not respond to the notice of intention to amend. Amended pages must be delivered to effect an amendment.[1]
4 The defendants did not deliver the amended pages. There was, therefore, no amendment as required by Rule 28(5) read with sub-rule (7).
5 The affidavit opposing summary judgement must be limited to defences detailed in a plea.[2] The respondents are restricted to defences in their original plea.
6 The defences raised in opposing summary judgement include defences in the notice of intention to amend. Those defences are not competent for want of the defendants effecting the amendment to their plea.
7 The court therefore will not consider the opposition to summary judgement with reference to the following stated defences:
7.1 non-compliance with the W.CI.20 procedure;
7.2 non-compliance with section 73 of the Act; and
7.3 non-compliance with Rule 10.
8 The plaintiff conducts business, among others, of providing medical aid to employees injured on duty and who are entitled to compensation and or medical aid in terms of the Compensation for Occupational
Diseases and Injuries Act 130 of 1993 (“COIDA”). The plaintiff submits claims for payment to the first defendant to process and validate such accounts, and to pay for validated accounts.
9 The plaintiff initially claimed the amount of R2 036 481.53. The plaintiff seeks summary judgement in the amount of R1 765 126.80. That is because the defendants made certain payments leading to the launch of this application.
10 The plaintiff, in the affidavit supporting summary judgement, contends that the plaintiff complied with all the requirements in COIDA, including compliance with all statutory tariff amounts listed in the Government Gazette. The plaintiff further contends that the first defendant processed and validated the claims.
11 The defendants’ defence on the merits is that the plaintiff had not submitted all medical accounts referred to in annexure “POC 2” to the particulars of claim and that the medical accounts had therefore not been verified; with the result that such medical accounts were not due or payable until such time as the plaintiff
resubmitted the accounts.
12 The defendants deny that the claims comply with the statutory tariff. They also deny that the claims have been validated or are due and payable. They aver that “there are currently no matters which were rejected” at the time of the application for summary judgement.
13 The Full Bench of the South Gauteng Division of the High Court held that:
The purpose of a summary judgment application is to allow the court to summarily dispense with actions that ought not to proceed to trial because they do not raise a genuine triable issue, thereby conserving scarce judicial resources and improving access to justice. […].[3]
14 The defendants do not substantiate their denial. For example, they do not explain why claims do not comply with the statutory tariff. The defendants are required, insofar as the contend that the claims did not comply with the tariff, to detail why that is the case. That was not done. They therefore failed to substantiate why the plaintiff would be entitled to its claim.
15 The defendants cannot, in the same breath, say the defendants had not rejected any matters at the launch of summary judgement proceedings; whilst simultaneously averring that claims had not been validated or that claims were not due or payable.
16 The judgement does not detail every single basis raised by the defendants for resisting summary judgement. I find that, in the whole, the issues raised by the defendants do not raise genuine triable issues. Those issues include the contention that the claim is not a liquidated amount.
17 The Court has previously rejected a defence that the type of claim such as that by the plaintiff is not based on a liquidated amount. At least two decisions in this Division rejected this defence in similar summary judgement proceedings against the defendants.[4]
18 I am bound by the decisions referred to above. I can only deviate from those decisions where they are clearly wrong. They are not.
19 The application for summary judgement succeeds. I make the following order:
(a) Judgement is rendered in favour of the plaintiff in the amount of R 1 765 126.00.
(b) Interest on each Medical Account set out in Annexure “POC2”
to the particulars of claim at the prescribed legal rate, calculated from the date of acceptance of each claim as set out in Annexure
“POC2” to the particulars of claim.
(c) Costs
Omphemetse Mooki
Judge of the High Court (Acting)
Heard on: 7 August 2023
Delivered on: 20 September 2023
For the Applicant: C J Welgemoed Instructed by: Podbielski Mhlambi Inc. For the Respondents: M Makhubela Instructed by: The State Attorney
[1] Becker v MEC for The Department of Economic Development & Environmental Affairs and Others (3366/2013) [2014] ZAECPEHC 43 (24 June 2014), para 17
[2] Maharaj v Barclays Bank Ltd 1976 (1) SA 418 at 426A-E
[3] Raumix Aggregates (Pty) Ltd v Richter Sand CC and Another 2020 (1) SA 623 (GJ) (4 October 2019), para 16
[4] Compensation Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Compensation Commissioner and Others (56219/2021 ; 49156/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 572 (18 July 2023), per Ally AJ, and case Case number 76034/2018 dated 13 December 2018, per Swanepoel AJ.
[4] Compensation Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Compensation Commissioner and Others (56219/2021 ; 49156/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 572 (18 July 2023), per Ally AJ, and case
Case number 76034/2018 dated 13 December 2018, per Swanepoel AJ.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.