Du Preez N.O obo Shabangu v MEC for Health, Gauteng (58051/2018) [2025] ZAGPPHC 465 (2 May 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPPHC 465
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Bam
- Case number
- 58051/2018
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Bam
- Case number
- 58051/2018
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
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.
- The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff’s taxed or agreed costs, including the costs of trial from 7 August to 11 August 2023, the reasonable preparation costs of experts, and any addenda to expert reports.
- The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the curator ad litem.
- The costs are to be paid to the credit of the plaintiff’s attorney’s trust account.
02
Material facts
Parties
ADV. W du PREEZ N.O obo BUSISIWE REBONE SHABANGU
Plaintiff Counsel: Adv J.S.M Güldenpfennig with Adv D.P VillerMEC FOR HEALTH, GAUTENG
Defendant Counsel: Adv S Malatji03
Procedural history
Posture
Variation Application / Order Varying Previous Judgment Under Rule 42(1)(b)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the previous order contained a patent error or omission regarding costs, specifically the costs of the curator ad litem.
- 02
Whether the order should be varied in terms of Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court to correct the omission.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The plaintiff submitted that the original order omitted to specify various costs, including those of the curator ad litem, which constitutes a patent error or omission. The plaintiff drew this omission to the attention of the court and the defendant, requesting that the order be varied in terms of Rule 42(1)(b) to include the omitted costs.
- Respondent
- The defendant did not oppose the application for variation and did not dispute the existence of the omission. The defendant accepted that the requirements of Rule 42(3) had been met and did not advance any argument against the correction of the order.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court
A court may vary an order or judgment in which there is an ambiguity, or a patent error or omission, but only to the extent of such ambiguity, error or omission.
- 02
Rule 42(3) of the Uniform Rules of Court
Compliance with Rule 42(3) requires that all affected parties be notified of the application for variation.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
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).
Obiter and limits
- The separation of liability and quantum under Rule 33(4) remains unaffected by this variation.
- The inclusion of expert preparation costs and curator ad litem costs is necessary to ensure full compensation for the plaintiff.
Court disposition
Order varied to correct omission regarding costs; defendant ordered to pay specified costs including those of the curator ad litem.
- 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.
- The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff’s taxed or agreed costs, including the costs of trial from 7 August to 11 August 2023, the reasonable preparation costs of experts, and any addenda to expert reports.
- The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the curator ad litem.
- The costs are to be paid to the credit of the plaintiff’s attorney’s trust account.
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
Order
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 58051/2018
DOH: 07 – 11 AUGUST 2023
DECIDED: 12 FEBRUARY 2024
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
DATE: 02 MAY 2025
SIGNATURE:
In the matter between:
ADV. W du PREEZ N.O obo BUSISIWE REBONE SHABANGU Plaintiff
And
MEC FOR HEALTH,
GAUTENG
Defendant
VARIATION OF ORDER IN TERMS OF RULE 42 (1) (b)
Bam J
1. This is a variation of the order issued by this court on 12 February 2024 to correct a patent error or omission.
2. In terms of Rule 42 (1) (b) of the Uniform Rules of Court, (Rules):
‘(1) The court may, in addition to any other powers it may have, mero motu or upon the application of any party affected, rescind or vary:
(a) ...
(b) an order or judgment in which there is an ambiguity, or a patent error or omission, but only to the extent of such ambiguity, error or omission.
Omission
3. Upon granting the order, this court omitted to specify the various costs, including the costs of the curator ad litem. Following the plaintiff’s notice drawing the omission/patent error to the attention of the court and the Defendant, this court is satisfied that there has been compliance with Rule 42(3). Accordingly, the Order is hereby varied to read as follows:
Order
1. 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.
2. The defendant is ordered to pay 100% of the plaintiff’s proven and/or agreed damages.
3. The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff’s taxed or agreed costs, which costs shall include but are not limited to the costs of trial from 7 August to 11 August 2023, including,
3.1 the reasonable preparation costs of experts and any addenda (if any) to the reports of the following experts:
3.1.1 Dr Birrell – Orthopedic Surgeon
3.1.2 Dr Botha – Specialist Physician; and
3.1.3 Ms Jansen van Rensburg – Registered Nurse; and
4. The costs of the curator ad litem.
5. The costs are to be paid to the credit of the plaintiff’s attorney’s trust account, the details of which are:
N.N
BAM
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
GAUTENG
DIVISION PRETORIA
Appearances:
Counsel for the Plaintiff: Adv J.S.M Güldenpfennig with him Adv D.P Viller Instructed by: Werner Boshoff Inc. Brooklyn, Pretoria Counsel for the Defendant: Adv S Malatji Instructed by: The State Attorney Pretoria
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.