Dickson v MEC: Department of Health Free State Province (2132/2021) [2025] ZAFSHC 124 (7 May 2025)

Dickson v MEC: Department of Health Free State Province (2132/2021) [2025] ZAFSHC 124 (7 May 2025)

The court found that the applicant only became aware of the cause of action on 9 March 2021, when she received the internal consultant's report confirming substandard care. The statutory notice was served promptly thereafter, and the claim was not prescribed. Even if the debt became due earlier, the applicant demonstrated good cause for any delay, including the time required to obtain medical records and expert opinions. The respondent failed to show real prejudice resulting from the delay, as their claims of witness unavailability were vague and unsupported. Both parties contributed to litigation delays, and the applicant acted bona fide in substantiating her claim before instituting...

Citation
[2025] ZAFSHC 124
Parties
Applicant: Rose Veronica Dickson; Respondent: MEC: Department of Health Free State Province
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 May 2025
Case Number
2132/2021
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Judgment on Application for Condonation Under S 3(4) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act
Outcome
Condonation granted for late notice under s 3(4)(b) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002; applicant deemed to have complied with s 3(2)(a); no order as to costs.
Judges
Opperman
Legal Topics
Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Act, Medical Negligence, Prescription, Condonation, Notice Requirements

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rose Veronica Dickson

Applicant

MEC: Department of Health Free State Province

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Judgment on Application for Condonation Under S 3(4) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act

  1. 1 What is the date when the debt became due for purposes of s 3 of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002.
  2. 2 Has the applicant's claim prescribed under the relevant statutory provisions.
  3. 3 Does good cause exist for the applicant's failure to serve notice within the prescribed period.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant only became aware of the cause of action on 9 March 2021, when she received the internal consultant's report confirming substandard care. The statutory notice was served promptly thereafter, and the claim was not prescribed. Even if the debt became due earlier, the applicant demonstrated good cause for any delay, including the time required to obtain medical records and expert opinions. The respondent failed to show real prejudice resulting from the delay, as their claims of witness unavailability were vague and unsupported. Both parties contributed to litigation delays, and the applicant acted bona fide in substantiating her claim before instituting...

Court Disposition

Condonation granted for late notice under s 3(4)(b) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002; applicant deemed to have complied with s 3(2)(a); no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The applicant complied with the requirements of s 3(2)(a) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002, having regard to the provisions of s 3(3)(a).
  • In the alternative, condonation is granted to the applicant in terms of section 3(4)(b) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002 for failure to serve a notice in terms of s 3(2)(a).