Ngovhela v Mbele and Another (23641/2019) [2020] ZAGPPHC 664 (18 November 2020)

Ngovhela v Mbele and Another (23641/2019) [2020] ZAGPPHC 664 (18 November 2020)

The court held that none of Netcare's four complaints regarding the plaintiff's particulars of claim were sustainable. The particulars provided sufficient detail regarding the permanence of disabilities, the quantification and composition of medical expenses, the period and computation for loss of income, and the amenities of life lost. The court found that Rule 18(10) does not require the restrictive level of specificity demanded by Netcare, and that the particulars, read as a whole, enable Netcare to reasonably assess the quantum claimed and plead to the case. The exception was found to be based on a misconception of the function and requirements of particulars, and was dismissed with...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 664
Parties
Plaintiff: SP Nengovhela; Defendant: Mbele, A.M.; Defendant: Netcare Femina Hospital
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 November 2020
Case Number
23641/2019
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Judgment on Exception
Outcome
Exception dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.
Judges
S D J Wilson
Legal Topics
Rule 18 Pleading Requirements, Vague and Embarrassing Exception, Quantification of Damages, Medical Negligence
Civil Procedure Delict Rule 18 Pleading Requirements Vague and Embarrassing Exception Quantification of Damages Medical Negligence

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SP Nengovhela

Plaintiff

Mbele, A.M.

Defendant

Netcare Femina Hospital

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Judgment on Exception

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing in terms of Rule 18.
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim comply with Rule 18(10) regarding the quantification and specification of damages.
  3. 3 Whether the exception taken by Netcare is sustainable on any of the four grounds advanced.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that none of Netcare's four complaints regarding the plaintiff's particulars of claim were sustainable. The particulars provided sufficient detail regarding the permanence of disabilities, the quantification and composition of medical expenses, the period and computation for loss of income, and the amenities of life lost. The court found that Rule 18(10) does not require the restrictive level of specificity demanded by Netcare, and that the particulars, read as a whole, enable Netcare to reasonably assess the quantum claimed and plead to the case. The exception was found to be based on a misconception of the function and requirements of particulars, and was dismissed with...

Court Disposition

Exception dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The exception is dismissed.
  • Netcare is ordered to pay the costs of the exception on the scale as between attorney and client.