MEC for Health, Free State v Marumo (24/2015) [2025] ZAFSHC 163 (4 June 2025)

MEC for Health, Free State v Marumo (24/2015) [2025] ZAFSHC 163 (4 June 2025)

The court found that the applicant established reasonable prospects of success on appeal, as the trial court conflated issues and made erroneous orders regarding negligence and damages. The judgment a quo addressed matters not properly before it, and some orders were not supported by the evidence. In light of these errors and the applicable legal principles governing leave to appeal, the court determined that the entire judgment should be subject to appeal before a full bench. Costs are to be determined in the appeal.

Citation
[2025] ZAFSHC 163
Parties
Applicant: Member of the Executive Council: Department of Health, Free State; Respondent: Dolly Ntombizodwa Marumo
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 June 2025
Case Number
24/2015
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Trial Judgment
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted to a full court of the Division. Costs to be determined in the appeal.
Judges
Opperman J
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Negligence, Medical Malpractice, General Damages
Civil Procedure Delict Leave to Appeal Negligence Medical Malpractice General Damages

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Member of the Executive Council: Department of Health, Free State

Applicant

Dolly Ntombizodwa Marumo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success for an appeal against the trial court's judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred in its factual findings and orders regarding negligence and damages.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court pronounced on issues not properly before it.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant established reasonable prospects of success on appeal, as the trial court conflated issues and made erroneous orders regarding negligence and damages. The judgment a quo addressed matters not properly before it, and some orders were not supported by the evidence. In light of these errors and the applicable legal principles governing leave to appeal, the court determined that the entire judgment should be subject to appeal before a full bench. Costs are to be determined in the appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted to a full court of the Division. Costs to be determined in the appeal.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal on the judgment as a whole is granted to a full court of this Division.
  • Costs shall be in the appeal.