Sivenene obo M.M v Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Health, Eastern Cape Province (Leave to Appeal) (605/2020) [2023] ZAECMHC 31 (13 June 2023)

Sivenene obo M.M v Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Health, Eastern Cape Province (Leave to Appeal) (605/2020) [2023] ZAECMHC 31 (13 June 2023)

The court found that the defendant's grounds for leave to appeal were not supported by a sound, rational basis. The expert evidence presented by the plaintiff was uncontested and logically reasoned, while the defendant's experts' opinions were based on assumptions not supported by facts. The costs and contingency factors applied were not shown to be the result of an improper exercise of judicial discretion. The recommendations for architectural services were compliant with relevant standards, and the defendant failed to substantiate its challenges to the costs of caregiver and domestic services. Applying the test under section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act, the court concluded...

Citation
[2023] ZAECMHC 31
Parties
Plaintiff: Andiswa Sivenene obo M[...] M[...]; Defendant: Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Health, Eastern Cape Province
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 June 2023
Case Number
605/2020
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Damages
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs consequent to the employment of two counsel where applicable.
Judges
Rugunanan
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Expert Evidence, Quantification of Damages, Loss of Income, Caregiver Services, Architectural Services
Civil Procedure Delict Leave to Appeal Expert Evidence Quantification of Damages Loss of Income Caregiver Services Architectural Services

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

Parties

Andiswa Sivenene obo M[...] M[...]

Plaintiff

Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Health, Eastern Cape Province

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the heads of damages awarded for architectural services, loss of income, and caregiver and domestic services.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred in its acceptance and evaluation of expert evidence presented by both parties.
  3. 3 Whether the costs awarded and contingency factors applied were the result of a proper exercise of judicial discretion.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant's grounds for leave to appeal were not supported by a sound, rational basis. The expert evidence presented by the plaintiff was uncontested and logically reasoned, while the defendant's experts' opinions were based on assumptions not supported by facts. The costs and contingency factors applied were not shown to be the result of an improper exercise of judicial discretion. The recommendations for architectural services were compliant with relevant standards, and the defendant failed to substantiate its challenges to the costs of caregiver and domestic services. Applying the test under section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act, the court concluded...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs consequent to the employment of two counsel where applicable.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include those consequent to the employment of two counsel, where applicable.