Rakhojane v MEC for Health, NC Province (2293/2016) [2021] ZANCHC 25 (4 June 2021)

Rakhojane v MEC for Health, NC Province (2293/2016) [2021] ZANCHC 25 (4 June 2021)

The court found that the applicant's amended particulars of claim constituted a new cause of action, which had prescribed by the time they were served. The applicant was in possession of the relevant expert report prior to issuing summons, and thus had knowledge of the material facts necessary for prescription to commence. The applicant failed to comply with Rule 28 of the Uniform Rules of Court regarding the timely service and delivery of amended particulars. The application for condonation was refused as no good cause was shown for the delay. The court concluded that there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal, and dismissed the application for leave to appeal with costs.

Citation
[2021] ZANCHC 25
Parties
Applicant: George Rakhojane; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council for Health, NC Province
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 June 2021
Case Number
2293/2016
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Bench After Refusal of Condonation and Striking Out of Particulars of Claim.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mamosebo
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Condonation, Prescription, Amendment of Particulars of Claim, Uniform Rules of Court Rule 28
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Condonation Prescription Amendment of Particulars of Claim Uniform Rules of Court Rule 28

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Rakhojane

Applicant

Member of the Executive Council for Health, NC Province

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Bench After Refusal of Condonation and Striking Out of Particulars of Claim.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amended particulars of claim constituted a new cause of action subject to prescription.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to condonation for the late filing of amended particulars of claim.
  3. 3 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's amended particulars of claim constituted a new cause of action, which had prescribed by the time they were served. The applicant was in possession of the relevant expert report prior to issuing summons, and thus had knowledge of the material facts necessary for prescription to commence. The applicant failed to comply with Rule 28 of the Uniform Rules of Court regarding the timely service and delivery of amended particulars. The application for condonation was refused as no good cause was shown for the delay. The court concluded that there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal, and dismissed the application for leave to appeal with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.