Manziya v Member of the Executive Council Department of Health Eastern Cape and Another (950/2012) [2024] ZAECMKHC 76 (9 July 2024)
The court found that the defendants' special pleas regarding amendment and prescription were correctly dismissed, as there was no claim against Kariega Provincial Hospital despite allegations of medical negligence by its staff. The contradictions in the plaintiff's and his wife's evidence were not sufficient to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] ZAECMKHC 76
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Nkululeko Nathaniel Manziya; Defendant: Member of the Executive Council, Department of Health, Eastern Cape; Defendant: Medical Superintendent, Settlers Hospital, Makhanda
- Court
- Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 950/2012
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Merits and Special Plea
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted to the Full Bench of the Eastern Cape High Court. Costs to be costs in the appeal.
- Judges
- N G Beshe
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Medical Negligence, Special Plea, Amendment of Particulars, Prescription of Claim
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Nkululeko Nathaniel Manziya
Plaintiff
Member of the Executive Council, Department of Health, Eastern Cape
Defendant
Medical Superintendent, Settlers Hospital, Makhanda
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Merits and Special Plea
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendants' special pleas regarding amendment and prescription should have been upheld.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff proved negligence on a balance of probabilities.
- 3 Whether contradictions in the plaintiff's evidence warranted rejection of his claim.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defendants' special pleas regarding amendment and prescription were correctly dismissed, as there was no claim against Kariega Provincial Hospital despite allegations of medical negligence by its staff. The contradictions in the plaintiff's and his wife's evidence were not sufficient to warrant rejection of their testimonies, especially when considered in context and in light of the principle that appellate courts do not readily interfere with credibility findings. The court was not persuaded that the appeal lacked reasonable prospects of success, and therefore granted leave to appeal to the Full Bench of the Eastern Cape High Court.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted to the Full Bench of the Eastern Cape High Court. Costs to be costs in the appeal.
Orders
- Defendants are granted leave to appeal against the judgment and order rendered on 28 November 2023 to the Full Bench of the Eastern Cape High Court.
- Costs to be costs in the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, MAKHANDA)
CASE NUMBER.: 950/2012
In the matter between:
NKULULEKO NATHANIEL MANZIYA
Plaintiff/Respondent
And
MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL,
First Defendant/Applicant
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EASTERN CAPE
MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, SETTLERS
HOSPITAL, MAKHANDA
Second Defendant/Applicant
JUDGMENT ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
Beshe J
[1] On 4 November 2009 plaintiff’s left leg was amputated above the knee at the Kariega Provincial Hospital. He instituted an action for damages against the defendants on the basis that the amputation occurred as a result of negligence on the part of first defendant’s employees’ negligence at both Settlers Hospital, Makhanda and Kariega Provincial Hospital. At the conclusion of the trial, I entered judgment in plaintiff’s favour and found that the defendants were liable for such damages as plaintiff may prove that flow from the amputation of his leg. I also dismissed defendants’ special plea.
[2] The defendants are seeking leave to appeal against the said judgment.
[3] Defendants’ special pleas inter alia raised the point that plaintiff amended his particulars of claim to include allegations
relating to negligence by Kariega Provincial Hospital personnel. This was irregular as it did not comply with Rule 28. Secondly, that plaintiff’s claim in respect of the alleged negligence at Kariega Provincial Hospital had prescribed as it amounts to a new cause of action.
[4] I dismissed the special pleas on the basis inter alia that there was no claim against Kariega Provincial Hospital even though medical negligence is alleged against the hospital’s staff.
[5] Regarding the merits, it is submitted that I misdirected myself by accepting plaintiff’s evidence in support of his case. On the basis that there were contradictions between the plaintiff’s evidence and that of his wife. Further, that there were internal contradictions in their respective testimonies, and this called for the rejection of their evidence. Especially when viewed in conjunction with defendants’ evidence, so it was argued. Defendants further take issue with the fact that I found that not much weight could be attached to Dr Megafu’s statement because it was not subjected to cross-examination.
[6] In a nutshell, it was argued that there are reasonable prospects of another court finding that the plaintiff did not succeed in proving his claim on a balance of probabilities.
[7] Plaintiff, on the other hand, argued that the appeal did not enjoy reasonable prospects of success in that the court had correctly
dismissed the special pleas. This on the basis that there was no allegation that there was an intervening act or that the actions / omissions of the personnel at Kariega Provincial Hospital introduced an intervening act. As far as the merits are concerned, that the court could not view the contradictions in plaintiff’s evidence in isolation and they were therefore not such that they warranted plaintiff’s evidence. The court’s attention was also drawn to the trite principle that an appellate court will not readily interfere with a court’s credibility findings. This is however not an inflexible rule/principle. It is also trite that where the credibility finding is clearly wrong, the appellate court will interfere with such finding.[1]
[8] That being the case, I am unable to find that the appeal will in these circumstances not enjoy reasonable prospects of success.
[9] Accordingly, the defendants are granted leave to appeal against the judgment and order I rendered on 28 November 2023 to the Full Bench of the Eastern Cape High Court. Costs to be costs in the appeal.
N G BESHE
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
APPEARANCES
For the Plaintiff/Respondent : Adv: JD LE ROUX Instructed by F A SWANEPOEL ATTORNEYS C/o DULLABH ATTORNEYS 5 Bertram Street MAKHANDA Ref: Mr NN Dullabh / Mr M Wolmarans Tel.: 046 – 622 6611 / 9966 For the Defendants/ Applicant Adv: Boswel Instructed by OFFICE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY C/o WHITESIDES ATTORNEYS 53 African Street MAKHANDA Ref.: Mr. G Barrow/gdp/C09289 Tel.: 046 – 622 7117 Date Heard : 21 February 2024 Date Reserved : 21 February 2024 Date Delivered : 9 July 2024
Judgment handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ legal representatives via email and release to SAFLII.
The date and time of handing down of the judgment is deemed to be 11h30 on the 9 July 2024.
[1] See R v Dlumayo and Another 1948 (2) SA 677 (A) at 706; Muster Estates (Pty) Ltd v Killimey Hills (Pty) Ltd 1979 (1) SA 621 at 623; Santam Bpjk v Biddulp [2004] 2 All SA 23 (SCA) at 25 paragraph [5].