T.L.M v MEC for Health: Mpumalanga (1674/2018) [2021] ZAMPMBHC 21 (28 June 2021)

T.L.M v MEC for Health: Mpumalanga (1674/2018) [2021] ZAMPMBHC 21 (28 June 2021)

The court found that the applicant had not acquired knowledge of the respondent's identity or the facts giving rise to the claim until her consultation with attorneys in 2018. Her semi-illiteracy and social background were accepted as reasonable explanations for the delay. The court held that prescription had not extinguished the minor child's claim, as he was still a minor at the time of institution of proceedings. The applicant made a prima facie case for the minor child, and the absence of medical records at the condonation stage did not preclude the matter from proceeding to trial. The respondent failed to demonstrate any actual prejudice resulting from the delay. The court concluded...

Citation
[2021] ZAMPMBHC 21
Parties
Plaintiff: T[….] L[….] M[….]; Defendant: MEC for Health: Mpumalanga
Court
Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 June 2021
Case Number
1674/2018
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Notice Under Section 3(2)(a) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act
Outcome
Condonation granted for late notice; action validly instituted; costs reserved for the action.
Judges
Mashile
Legal Topics
Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State, Condonation, Prescription, Vicarious Liability
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Condonation Prescription Vicarious Liability

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T[….] L[….] M[….]

Plaintiff

MEC for Health: Mpumalanga

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Notice Under Section 3(2)(a) of the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's failure to serve notice within six months should be condoned.
  2. 2 Whether the notice served in April 2018 is proper and sufficient.
  3. 3 Whether the action instituted in June 2018 was validly and properly instituted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had not acquired knowledge of the respondent's identity or the facts giving rise to the claim until her consultation with attorneys in 2018. Her semi-illiteracy and social background were accepted as reasonable explanations for the delay. The court held that prescription had not extinguished the minor child's claim, as he was still a minor at the time of institution of proceedings. The applicant made a prima facie case for the minor child, and the absence of medical records at the condonation stage did not preclude the matter from proceeding to trial. The respondent failed to demonstrate any actual prejudice resulting from the delay. The court concluded...

Court Disposition

Condonation granted for late notice; action validly instituted; costs reserved for the action.

Orders

  • The applicant's failure to serve notice within six months is condoned.
  • The notice dated 16 April 2018 served on the respondent is proper and sufficient.