Slabbert v MEC for Health and Social Development of Gauteng Provincial Government (432/2016) [2016] ZASCA 157 (3 October 2016)

Slabbert v MEC for Health and Social Development of Gauteng Provincial Government (432/2016) [2016] ZASCA 157 (3 October 2016)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the compromise agreement and consent order could not be rescinded on the grounds advanced by the respondent. The alleged new evidence was not new, but rather information that was available to the respondent prior to the conclusion of the compromise agreement. The respondent's failure to properly investigate or consult experts before settling constituted a unilateral mistake, which does not justify rescission under South African law. There was no fraud, justus error vitiating true consent, or mutual mistake. The court a quo erred in granting rescission, as courts have no discretion to set aside a consent order unless the underlying compromise agreement...

Citation
[2016] ZASCA 157
Parties
Appellant: Elmarie Slabbert; Respondent: The Member of the Executive Council for Health and Social Development of Gauteng Provincial Government
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 October 2016
Case Number
432/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal upheld; application for rescission of the order made on 4 May 2015 dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Mpati, Petse, Willis, Dambuza, Potterill
Legal Topics
Compromise Agreement, Rescission of Order, Consent Order, Uniform Rule 42
Civil Procedure Compromise Agreement Rescission of Order Consent Order Uniform Rule 42

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elmarie Slabbert

Appellant

The Member of the Executive Council for Health and Social Development of Gauteng Provincial Government

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the compromise agreement and consent order can be rescinded on the grounds of fraud, justus error, or mutual mistake.
  2. 2 Whether the court a quo correctly applied the law in granting rescission of the compromise agreement and consent order.
  3. 3 Whether new evidence justified rescission of the compromise agreement and consent order.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the compromise agreement and consent order could not be rescinded on the grounds advanced by the respondent. The alleged new evidence was not new, but rather information that was available to the respondent prior to the conclusion of the compromise agreement. The respondent's failure to properly investigate or consult experts before settling constituted a unilateral mistake, which does not justify rescission under South African law. There was no fraud, justus error vitiating true consent, or mutual mistake. The court a quo erred in granting rescission, as courts have no discretion to set aside a consent order unless the underlying compromise agreement...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; application for rescission of the order made on 4 May 2015 dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs including the costs of two counsel.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with: 'The application for rescission of the order made on 4 May 2015 is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.'