Buthelezi and Another v MEC for Health Gauteng Province (12035/07) [2013] ZAGPJHC 414 (17 September 2013)

Buthelezi and Another v MEC for Health Gauteng Province (12035/07) [2013] ZAGPJHC 414 (17 September 2013)

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, any causal negligence on the part of the defendant's personnel in relation to the stillbirth. The expert medical evidence did not establish negligence. Furthermore, the court held that South African law does not recognise a right to rear a child, nor did the plaintiffs identify any constitutional right infringed. The plaintiffs also failed to particularise their damages as required by procedural rules. As a result, the claim was unsustainable both in delict and constitutional law, and the plaintiffs' action was dismissed.

Citation
[2013] ZAGPJHC 414
Parties
Plaintiff: Buthelezi, T; Plaintiff: Mbhele, D; Defendant: MEC for Health Gauteng Province
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 September 2013
Case Number
12035/07
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
M Tsoka
Legal Topics
Medical Negligence, Causation, Constitutional Damages, Bill of Rights Limitation
Delict Constitutional Law Medical Negligence Causation Constitutional Damages Bill of Rights Limitation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Buthelezi, T

Plaintiff

Mbhele, D

Plaintiff

MEC for Health Gauteng Province

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's personnel were negligent in the medical treatment of the second plaintiff resulting in the stillbirth.
  2. 2 Whether South African law recognises a right to rear a child as a basis for damages.
  3. 3 Whether the second plaintiff is entitled to damages for infringement of any constitutional right.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, any causal negligence on the part of the defendant's personnel in relation to the stillbirth. The expert medical evidence did not establish negligence. Furthermore, the court held that South African law does not recognise a right to rear a child, nor did the plaintiffs identify any constitutional right infringed. The plaintiffs also failed to particularise their damages as required by procedural rules. As a result, the claim was unsustainable both in delict and constitutional law, and the plaintiffs' action was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiffs' claim against the defendant is dismissed with costs.