MEC for Health, Western Cape v M C (1087/2019) [2020] ZASCA 165 (10 December 2020)

MEC for Health, Western Cape v M C (1087/2019) [2020] ZASCA 165 (10 December 2020)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed to establish that the respondent's claim had prescribed. The particulars of claim did not specify the 'appropriate treatment' nor when it should have been administered, meaning the relevant primary facts were not pleaded. Without these facts, it was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] ZASCA 165
Parties
Appellant: MEC for Health, Western Cape; Respondent: M C
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 December 2020
Case Number
1087/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town; Determination of Special Plea of Prescription
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Van der Merwe, Molemela, Dlodlo, Sutherland, Unterhalter
Legal Topics
Extinctive Prescription, Prescription Act, Medical Negligence, Special Plea, Burden of Proof
Civil Procedure Delict Extinctive Prescription Prescription Act Medical Negligence Special Plea Burden of Proof

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

MEC for Health, Western Cape

Appellant

M C

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town; Determination of Special Plea of Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's claim for damages had prescribed under s 12(3) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent had knowledge of the facts from which the debt arose, sufficient to trigger the running of prescription.
  3. 3 Whether the particulars of claim pleaded sufficient primary facts to support the plea of prescription.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed to establish that the respondent's claim had prescribed. The particulars of claim did not specify the 'appropriate treatment' nor when it should have been administered, meaning the relevant primary facts were not pleaded. Without these facts, it was impossible to determine when the respondent knew or ought reasonably to have known the facts from which the debt arose. The court a quo erred in requiring knowledge of negligence as a prerequisite for prescription to commence. The appeal was dismissed because the special plea of prescription was raised without reference to the pleaded primary facts, rendering its determination futile.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.