N.P.S obo A.S v Member of the Executive Council for Health, Gauteng (Variation) (55763/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 271 (18 March 2024)

N.P.S obo A.S v Member of the Executive Council for Health, Gauteng (Variation) (55763/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 271 (18 March 2024)

The court found that the omission of costs for the qualifying, preparation and reservation fees of Professor Lotz, Dr Lombard, and Dr Weitz in the original order constituted a patent error. In terms of Rule 42(1)(b), the court is empowered to correct such errors. The variation does not affect the substance of the judgment but ensures that the plaintiff is properly compensated for the expert costs incurred. The order is varied to include these costs, subject to any objection by affected parties within five days.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 271
Parties
Plaintiff: N[...] P[...] obo A[...] S[...]; Defendant: Member of the Executive Council for Health, Gauteng
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 March 2024
Case Number
55763/2020
Procedural Posture
Variation Application / Post Judgment Correction Under Rule 42(1)(b)
Outcome
Order varied to include costs for qualifying, preparation and reservation fees of specified expert witnesses.
Judges
NN Bam
Legal Topics
Variation of Judgment, Rule 42 Uniform Rules, Costs Order, Expert Witness Fees
Civil Procedure Variation of Judgment Rule 42 Uniform Rules Costs Order Expert Witness Fees

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N[...] P[...] obo A[...] S[...]

Plaintiff

Member of the Executive Council for Health, Gauteng

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Variation Application / Post Judgment Correction Under Rule 42(1)(b)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the original order omitted to grant costs for qualifying, preparation and reservation fees for certain expert witnesses.
  2. 2 Whether the omission constitutes a patent error or omission justifying variation under Rule 42(1)(b).

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the omission of costs for the qualifying, preparation and reservation fees of Professor Lotz, Dr Lombard, and Dr Weitz in the original order constituted a patent error. In terms of Rule 42(1)(b), the court is empowered to correct such errors. The variation does not affect the substance of the judgment but ensures that the plaintiff is properly compensated for the expert costs incurred. The order is varied to include these costs, subject to any objection by affected parties within five days.

Court Disposition

Order varied to include costs for qualifying, preparation and reservation fees of specified expert witnesses.

Orders

  • The defendant shall pay the reasonable qualifying costs of preparation and reservation fees in respect of Professor Lotz (on the basis that he was excused on 23 August 2023), Dr Lombard and Dr Weitz (who both testified at the trial).
  • Any party whose interests may be affected may object within five days from the date of signature of this variation; failing which, the order shall be so amended.