Marasiro v Member For The Executive Council For Health Gauteng (41629/2014) [2018] ZAGPPHC 59 (6 March 2018)

Marasiro v Member For The Executive Council For Health Gauteng (41629/2014) [2018] ZAGPPHC 59 (6 March 2018)

The court held that the identity of persons who completed or signed entries in the medical records is not evidence in the sense asserted by the respondent, but rather necessary information for the proper conduct of the trial and the presentation of expert evidence. The respondent's refusal to provide these particulars was unjustified, especially as some particulars had already been furnished without prejudice. The court found no basis for the respondent's selective refusal and ordered compliance. The request for a punitive costs order was declined, as the respondent did provide some particulars and there was no clear evidence of mala fides in this application. However, the respondent was...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 59
Parties
Applicant: Marasiro, Rudo Prescilla; Respondent: Member for the Executive Council for Health Gauteng
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 March 2018
Case Number
41629/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Compel Further Particulars for Trial
Outcome
Application granted. Respondent ordered to furnish particulars and pay costs.
Judges
Millar
Legal Topics
Rule 21 Further Particulars, Medical Negligence, Expert Evidence, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Delict Rule 21 Further Particulars Medical Negligence Expert Evidence Costs Order

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marasiro, Rudo Prescilla

Applicant

Member for the Executive Council for Health Gauteng

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Compel Further Particulars for Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is obliged to furnish further particulars for trial as requested by the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the particulars sought amount to evidence or are necessary for trial preparation.
  3. 3 Whether a punitive costs order should be granted against the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the identity of persons who completed or signed entries in the medical records is not evidence in the sense asserted by the respondent, but rather necessary information for the proper conduct of the trial and the presentation of expert evidence. The respondent's refusal to provide these particulars was unjustified, especially as some particulars had already been furnished without prejudice. The court found no basis for the respondent's selective refusal and ordered compliance. The request for a punitive costs order was declined, as the respondent did provide some particulars and there was no clear evidence of mala fides in this application. However, the respondent was...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Respondent ordered to furnish particulars and pay costs.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to furnish the particulars sought by the applicant in paragraphs 2 to 6 (including their respective sub-paragraphs) of the request for further particulars for trial dated 30 September 2016.
  • The particulars are to be delivered within 10 days of service of this judgment upon the respondent.