TM obo MM v Member of the Executive Council for Health and Social Development, Gauteng (CCT 270/21) [2022] ZACC 18; 2023 (3) BCLR 315 (CC) (30 May 2022)

TM obo MM v Member of the Executive Council for Health and Social Development, Gauteng (CCT 270/21) [2022] ZACC 18; 2023 (3) BCLR 315 (CC) (30 May 2022)

The Constitutional Court held that the matter did not raise a constitutional issue or an arguable point of law of general public importance. The pleadings did not establish a constitutional basis for the claim, and the dispute before the Court was limited to factual questions of negligence and causation, which do not engage the Court's jurisdiction. The legal duty and wrongfulness were admitted and not in dispute; thus, the only remaining issues were factual in nature. The Court reaffirmed that it will not entertain appeals that challenge only factual findings or the incorrect application of law by lower courts. The applicant's attempt to frame the dispute as a constitutional matter was...

Citation
[2022] ZACC 18
Parties
Applicant: TM obo MM; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council for Health and Social Development, Gauteng
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 May 2022
Case Number
CCT 270/21
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court From the Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused. No order as to costs.
Judges
Madlanga, Kollapen, Majiedt, Mathopo, Mhlantla, Mlambo, Theron, Tshiqi, Unterhalter
Legal Topics
Medical Negligence, Duty of Care, Causation, Leave to Appeal, Right to Healthcare, Pleading Requirements
Civil Procedure Delict Constitutional Law Medical Negligence Duty of Care Causation Leave to Appeal Right to Healthcare +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TM obo MM

Applicant

Member of the Executive Council for Health and Social Development, Gauteng

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court From the Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the matter raise a constitutional issue or an arguable point of law of general public importance?
  2. 2 Was the Supreme Court of Appeal correct in its evaluation of negligence and causation regarding the hospital's conduct?
  3. 3 Is there a legal duty on public hospitals to manage resources efficiently and does breach of such duty attract delictual liability?

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the matter did not raise a constitutional issue or an arguable point of law of general public importance. The pleadings did not establish a constitutional basis for the claim, and the dispute before the Court was limited to factual questions of negligence and causation, which do not engage the Court's jurisdiction. The legal duty and wrongfulness were admitted and not in dispute; thus, the only remaining issues were factual in nature. The Court reaffirmed that it will not entertain appeals that challenge only factual findings or the incorrect application of law by lower courts. The applicant's attempt to frame the dispute as a constitutional matter was...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused.
  • Each party is to pay its own costs.