Ndaliso v MEC of the Department of Health of the Eastern Cape Government, Bisho (EL 478/12, ECD 1178/12) [2012] ZAECELLC 20 (30 November 2012)

Ndaliso v MEC of the Department of Health of the Eastern Cape Government, Bisho (EL 478/12, ECD 1178/12) [2012] ZAECELLC 20 (30 November 2012)

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim, when reasonably read, set out the material facts relied upon with sufficient clarity and particularity. The alleged negligence of the medical staff is clearly described as allowing a foreign object to become lodged in the plaintiff's knee, failing to detect it, and failing to arrange for its removal. The court held that the particulars are sufficient to enable the defendant to plead and to assess the quantum of damages, as the nature, duration, and sequelae of the injury are adequately stated. Details regarding the discovery of the foreign object are matters for evidence and not required to be pleaded. The exception was therefore...

Citation
[2012] ZAECELLC 20
Parties
Plaintiff: Bonisile Chris Ndaliso; Defendant: Member of the Executive Council of the Department of Health of the Eastern Cape Government, Bhisho
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 November 2012
Case Number
EL 478/12, ECD 1178/12
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception dismissed with costs.
Judges
J.E Smith
Legal Topics
Pleading Requirements, Vague and Embarrassing Exception, Medical Negligence, Quantum of Damages
Civil Procedure Delict Pleading Requirements Vague and Embarrassing Exception Medical Negligence Quantum of 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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bonisile Chris Ndaliso

Plaintiff

Member of the Executive Council of the Department of Health of the Eastern Cape Government, Bhisho

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing to the extent that they prejudice the defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim lack averments necessary to sustain a cause of action for medical negligence.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff has pleaded sufficient facts to enable the defendant to assess the quantum of damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim, when reasonably read, set out the material facts relied upon with sufficient clarity and particularity. The alleged negligence of the medical staff is clearly described as allowing a foreign object to become lodged in the plaintiff's knee, failing to detect it, and failing to arrange for its removal. The court held that the particulars are sufficient to enable the defendant to plead and to assess the quantum of damages, as the nature, duration, and sequelae of the injury are adequately stated. Details regarding the discovery of the foreign object are matters for evidence and not required to be pleaded. The exception was therefore...

Court Disposition

Exception dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The exception is dismissed with costs.