Du Preez N.O obo Shabangu v MEC for Health, Gauteng (58051/2018) [2025] ZAGPPHC 465 (2 May 2025)

Du Preez N.O obo Shabangu v MEC for Health, Gauteng (58051/2018) [2025] ZAGPPHC 465 (2 May 2025)

The court found that the original order issued on 12 February 2024 contained a patent omission in failing to specify the costs, including those of the curator ad litem. The omission was brought to the attention of the court and the defendant by the plaintiff, and there was compliance with the procedural requirements of Rule 42(3). The court was satisfied that the omission should be corrected and accordingly varied the order to include the specified costs. The variation was limited strictly to the extent of the omission, as permitted by Rule 42(1)(b).

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 465
Parties
Plaintiff: ADV. W du PREEZ N.O obo BUSISIWE REBONE SHABANGU; Defendant: MEC FOR HEALTH, GAUTENG
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 May 2025
Case Number
58051/2018
Procedural Posture
Variation Application / Order Varying Previous Judgment Under Rule 42(1)(b)
Outcome
Order varied to correct omission regarding costs; defendant ordered to pay specified costs including those of the curator ad litem.
Judges
Bam
Legal Topics
Variation of Order, Patent Error or Omission, Costs of Curator Ad Litem, Separation of Liability and Quantum
Civil Procedure Delict Variation of Order Patent Error or Omission Costs of Curator Ad Litem Separation of Liability and Quantum

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

ADV. W du PREEZ N.O obo BUSISIWE REBONE SHABANGU

Plaintiff

MEC FOR HEALTH, GAUTENG

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Variation Application / Order Varying Previous Judgment Under Rule 42(1)(b)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the previous order contained a patent error or omission regarding costs, specifically the costs of the curator ad litem.
  2. 2 Whether the order should be varied in terms of Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court to correct the omission.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the original order issued on 12 February 2024 contained a patent omission in failing to specify the costs, including those of the curator ad litem. The omission was brought to the attention of the court and the defendant by the plaintiff, and there was compliance with the procedural requirements of Rule 42(3). The court was satisfied that the omission should be corrected and accordingly varied the order to include the specified costs. The variation was limited strictly to the extent of the omission, as permitted by Rule 42(1)(b).

Court Disposition

Order varied to correct omission regarding costs; defendant ordered to pay specified costs including those of the curator ad litem.

Orders

  • The issue of liability and quantum is separated in terms of Rule 33(4) of the Uniform Rules of Court. Quantum is postponed sine die.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay 100% of the plaintiff’s proven and/or agreed damages.