Premier of Gauteng v Van Deventer (A1345/04) [2005] ZAGPHC 337 (11 November 2005)

Premier of Gauteng v Van Deventer (A1345/04) [2005] ZAGPHC 337 (11 November 2005)

The appeal succeeded because the trial court erred in awarding interest on the costs of the prostheses. The respondent had not incurred any expenses for the prostheses prior to judgment; the primary prosthesis was paid for by the appellant and the spare prosthesis could be purchased with the amount awarded, which was calculated to account for inflation. There was no basis for compensating the respondent for depreciated currency or expenses incurred before judgment. The trial judge should have exercised his discretion under section 2A(5) of the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act to nullify the effect of sections 2A(1) and 2A(2)(a) and not award interest on these amounts. The orders for...

Citation
[2005] ZAGPHC 337
Parties
Appellant: Premier of Gauteng; Respondent: Anna Francina Cecilia Van Deventer
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 November 2005
Case Number
A1345/04
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Quantum and Interest Orders Following Trial Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs, excluding half of the costs incurred for preparation and copying of the record. Orders for interest on prosthesis costs set aside.
Judges
S J Mynhardt, E Bertelsmann, N Ranchod
Legal Topics
Medical Negligence, Quantum of Damages, Interest on Unliquidated Debt, Prescribed Rate of Interest Act
Delict Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Quantum of Damages Interest on Unliquidated Debt Prescribed Rate of Interest Act

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Premier of Gauteng

Appellant

Anna Francina Cecilia Van Deventer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Quantum and Interest Orders Following Trial Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion under section 2A(5) of the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act to award interest on the costs of prostheses prior to judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was entitled to interest on amounts awarded for prosthetic costs when no expenses were incurred prior to judgment.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court's orders for interest on capitalised future costs were justified in law.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal succeeded because the trial court erred in awarding interest on the costs of the prostheses. The respondent had not incurred any expenses for the prostheses prior to judgment; the primary prosthesis was paid for by the appellant and the spare prosthesis could be purchased with the amount awarded, which was calculated to account for inflation. There was no basis for compensating the respondent for depreciated currency or expenses incurred before judgment. The trial judge should have exercised his discretion under section 2A(5) of the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act to nullify the effect of sections 2A(1) and 2A(2)(a) and not award interest on these amounts. The orders for...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs, excluding half of the costs incurred for preparation and copying of the record. Orders for interest on prosthesis costs set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, excluding half of the costs incurred in respect of the preparation and copying of the record.
  • The orders of the court a quo in paragraphs 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the amended order of 12 March 2004 are set aside.