Jim v MEC for Gauteng Department of Health (2021/16030) [2023] ZAGPJHC 212 (8 March 2023)

Jim v MEC for Gauteng Department of Health (2021/16030) [2023] ZAGPJHC 212 (8 March 2023)

The court held that while a party is generally not entitled to further particulars in response to a bare denial, this principle does not apply where the denial necessarily involves an implied and affirmative allegation. In this case, the defendant's denials implied that the plaintiff received proper medical treatment, a fact peculiarly within the defendant's knowledge. The absence of a pleaded version and reliance on bare denials would prejudice both parties at trial, as the issues would not be properly demarcated. The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to the requested particulars to avoid surprise and to prepare her case adequately. Referring the plaintiff to discovered...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 212
Parties
Plaintiff: Jim, Manjapedi Maria; Defendant: Member of the Executive Council, Gauteng Department of Health
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 March 2023
Case Number
2021/16030
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Interlocutory Application for Further Particulars Before Trial
Outcome
Application granted. Defendant ordered to provide further particulars and pay costs.
Judges
Moorcroft
Legal Topics
Request for Further Particulars, Bare Denial, Pleading Requirements, Medical Negligence
Civil Procedure Request for Further Particulars Bare Denial Pleading Requirements Medical Negligence

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jim, Manjapedi Maria

Plaintiff

Member of the Executive Council, Gauteng Department of Health

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Interlocutory Application for Further Particulars Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is obliged to provide further particulars for trial in response to the plaintiff's request.
  2. 2 Whether a bare denial in the plea precludes the plaintiff from obtaining further particulars.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's denials involve implied and affirmative allegations requiring disclosure of particulars.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while a party is generally not entitled to further particulars in response to a bare denial, this principle does not apply where the denial necessarily involves an implied and affirmative allegation. In this case, the defendant's denials implied that the plaintiff received proper medical treatment, a fact peculiarly within the defendant's knowledge. The absence of a pleaded version and reliance on bare denials would prejudice both parties at trial, as the issues would not be properly demarcated. The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to the requested particulars to avoid surprise and to prepare her case adequately. Referring the plaintiff to discovered...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Defendant ordered to provide further particulars and pay costs.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to serve and file a response to the plaintiff's request for further particulars for trial dated 27 June 2022 and served on 28 June 2022.
  • The order must be complied with within ten court days of publication of this judgment by email and on CaseLines, and Rule 21(3) must be complied with.