Foster and Another v Member of the Executive Committee, Education, North West Province and Others (18952/2007) [2020] ZAGPPHC 610 (22 October 2020)

Foster and Another v Member of the Executive Committee, Education, North West Province and Others (18952/2007) [2020] ZAGPPHC 610 (22 October 2020)

The court found that the original order was ambiguous in referring to 'defendants' when only the first defendant was before the court, and that this constituted a patent error. The court held that varying the order to refer specifically to the 'first defendant' would give effect to the true intention of the judgment...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 610
Parties
Plaintiff: Izak Boshoff Foster; Plaintiff: Guillaume Henri Boshoff Foster; Defendant: Member of the Executive Committee, Education, North West Province; Defendant: The Leopard Rugby Union; Defendant: KOSH Sport & Trauma Services
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 October 2020
Case Number
18952/2007
Procedural Posture
Variation Application / Application to Vary Previous Court Order and Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application to vary the order granted in part; paragraphs [54]1 and [54]2 of the original judgment are varied to refer to the first defendant and specify the nature of the injuries. Application in respect of the second plaintiff's claims refused.
Judges
S Potterill
Legal Topics
Variation of Court Order, Rule 42 Uniform Rules, Liability for Personal Injury, Quantification of Damages
Civil Procedure Delict Variation of Court Order Rule 42 Uniform Rules Liability for Personal Injury Quantification of Damages

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Izak Boshoff Foster

Plaintiff

Guillaume Henri Boshoff Foster

Plaintiff

Member of the Executive Committee, Education, North West Province

Defendant

The Leopard Rugby Union

Defendant

KOSH Sport & Trauma Services

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Variation Application / Application to Vary Previous Court Order and Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the reference to 'defendants' in the original order should be corrected to 'first defendant'.
  2. 2 Whether the omission to specify the nature and extent of the injuries in the order can be rectified without altering the substance of the judgment.
  3. 3 Whether the second plaintiff's claims were addressed in the original judgment and if the omission can be remedied under Rule 42.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the original order was ambiguous in referring to 'defendants' when only the first defendant was before the court, and that this constituted a patent error. The court held that varying the order to refer specifically to the 'first defendant' would give effect to the true intention of the judgment without altering its substance. The omission to specify the nature and extent of the injuries was also found to be a correctable error, as the extent of the damages was common cause and supported by expert evidence. However, the court declined to vary the order to include the second plaintiff's claims, as the original judgment did not address these claims and doing so would...

Court Disposition

Application to vary the order granted in part; paragraphs [54]1 and [54]2 of the original judgment are varied to refer to the first defendant and specify the nature of the injuries. Application in respect of the second plaintiff's claims refused.

Orders

  • Paragraph [54]1 of the judgment is varied to read: 'The first defendant is liable for 100% of proven or agreed damages suffered by the first plaintiff as a result of the manner in which first plaintiff was carried off the field on 6 May 2006, which aggravated an existing cervical spine injury with neurological...
  • Paragraph [54]2 of the judgment is varied to read: 'The first defendant is directed to pay the plaintiffs’ costs on a punitive scale as between attorney and client which costs shall include: (1) Costs of procuring medico-legal reports, consultations, attending meetings and procuring joint minutes; (2) Costs of all...