Ntobo v The MEC For Health For The Free State Province (2196/2017) [2018] ZAFSHC 146 (21 September 2018)

Ntobo v The MEC For Health For The Free State Province (2196/2017) [2018] ZAFSHC 146 (21 September 2018)

The court found that the applicant did not deliver the statutory notice within the prescribed six-month period, but her delay was not wilful and was explained by the time needed to obtain medical records, expert advice, and legal consultation. The applicant only acquired full knowledge of the facts giving rise to her claim after receiving the final relevant information on 8 July 2016. The explanation for the delay, while weak in some respects, was mitigated by strong prospects of success and the absence of unreasonable prejudice to the respondent. The respondent's claim of prejudice was not substantiated, as the absence of one doctor did not preclude the respondent from defending the...

Citation
[2018] ZAFSHC 146
Parties
Applicant: Palesa Asarinah Ntobo; Respondent: The MEC for Health for the Free State Province
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 September 2018
Case Number
2196/2017
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Notice Under S3(4) of Act 40 of 2002
Outcome
Application for condonation granted. Costs awarded to the applicant on a party and party scale.
Judges
Snellenburg, AJ
Legal Topics
Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Act, Condonation, Prescription, Medical Negligence, Notice Requirements
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Act Condonation Prescription Medical Negligence Notice Requirements

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Palesa Asarinah Ntobo

Applicant

The MEC for Health for the Free State Province

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Notice Under S3(4) of Act 40 of 2002

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's failure to deliver notice within six months should be condoned under section 3(4) of Act 40 of 2002.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for the delay in delivering the notice.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was unreasonably prejudiced by the late notice.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant did not deliver the statutory notice within the prescribed six-month period, but her delay was not wilful and was explained by the time needed to obtain medical records, expert advice, and legal consultation. The applicant only acquired full knowledge of the facts giving rise to her claim after receiving the final relevant information on 8 July 2016. The explanation for the delay, while weak in some respects, was mitigated by strong prospects of success and the absence of unreasonable prejudice to the respondent. The respondent's claim of prejudice was not substantiated, as the absence of one doctor did not preclude the respondent from defending the...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation granted. Costs awarded to the applicant on a party and party scale.

Orders

  • Condonation for failure to comply with section 3(2)(a) of Act 40 of 2002 is granted.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs occasioned by the opposition of the application.