MEC for Health, Gauteng v M.C.C - Appeal (10242/2017) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1384 (28 November 2023)

MEC for Health, Gauteng v M.C.C - Appeal (10242/2017) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1384 (28 November 2023)

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The applicant raised substantial grounds regarding the prescription period and the nature of the alleged negligence, specifically whether liability could be attributed for an injury possibly occurring outside the pleaded period and whether the complication was a recognised risk of the procedure. The court considered the submissions of both parties and the principles governing medical negligence and leave to appeal. It concluded that the applicant should be granted leave to appeal to the Full Court, as the issues raised warrant further judicial consideration.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1384
Parties
Applicant: MEC for Health, Gauteng; Respondent: M[…] C[…] C[…]
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 November 2023
Case Number
10242/2017
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment and Costs Order
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted to the Full Court of this Division with costs to be costs in the appeal.
Judges
SC Mia
Legal Topics
Medical Negligence, Leave to Appeal, Prescription Period, Complications of Surgery
Civil Procedure Delict Medical Negligence Leave to Appeal Prescription Period Complications of Surgery

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

MEC for Health, Gauteng

Applicant

M[…] C[…] C[…]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment and Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be held liable for the severance of the respondent's sphincter muscle allegedly occurring during delivery or subsequent surgery.
  2. 2 Whether the claim based on the episiotomy had prescribed before summons was issued.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's surgeon was negligent in failing to recognise harm caused to the respondent's sphincter muscle.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The applicant raised substantial grounds regarding the prescription period and the nature of the alleged negligence, specifically whether liability could be attributed for an injury possibly occurring outside the pleaded period and whether the complication was a recognised risk of the procedure. The court considered the submissions of both parties and the principles governing medical negligence and leave to appeal. It concluded that the applicant should be granted leave to appeal to the Full Court, as the issues raised warrant further judicial consideration.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the Full Court of this Division with costs to be costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to appeal to the Full Court of this Division.
  • Costs to be costs in the appeal.