Buthelezi v Ndaba (575/2012) [2013] ZASCA 72; 2013 (5) SA 437 (SCA) (29 May 2013)

Buthelezi v Ndaba (575/2012) [2013] ZASCA 72; 2013 (5) SA 437 (SCA) (29 May 2013)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the occurrence of a vesico-vaginal fistula following a hysterectomy does not, in itself, justify an inference of negligence against the surgeon. The respondent's expert opinion was based on speculation and an inappropriate application of the res ipsa loquitur maxim. The appellant's expert, supported by international medical literature, established that such injuries are inherent risks of the procedure and may occur despite reasonable care. The court held that negligence was not proven, as there was no evidence that the appellant's conduct fell below the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner. The appeal was upheld, and the respondent's claim...

Citation
[2013] ZASCA 72
Parties
Appellant: Gabriel Buthelezi; Respondent: Priscilla Zanele Ndaba
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 May 2013
Case Number
575/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Kwa Zulu Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Outcome
Appeal upheld; respondent's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Brand, Lewis, Cachalia, Majiedt, Saldulker
Legal Topics
Medical Negligence, Expert Evidence, Res Ipsa Loquitur, Standard of Care
Delict Medical Negligence Expert Evidence Res Ipsa Loquitur Standard of Care

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gabriel Buthelezi

Appellant

Priscilla Zanele Ndaba

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Kwa Zulu Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was negligent in performing the hysterectomy operation resulting in a vesico-vaginal fistula.
  2. 2 Whether the occurrence of the fistula itself justifies an inference of negligence.
  3. 3 How conflicting expert medical opinions should be evaluated in determining negligence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the occurrence of a vesico-vaginal fistula following a hysterectomy does not, in itself, justify an inference of negligence against the surgeon. The respondent's expert opinion was based on speculation and an inappropriate application of the res ipsa loquitur maxim. The appellant's expert, supported by international medical literature, established that such injuries are inherent risks of the procedure and may occur despite reasonable care. The court held that negligence was not proven, as there was no evidence that the appellant's conduct fell below the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner. The appeal was upheld, and the respondent's claim...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; respondent's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with: 'The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with costs.'