V.M obo T.M and Another v MEC of Health-North West (818/14) [2017] ZANWHC 11 (10 February 2017)

V.M obo T.M and Another v MEC of Health-North West (818/14) [2017] ZANWHC 11 (10 February 2017)

The court held that the defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving that the plaintiffs had knowledge of all material facts from which the debt arose on 29 September 2009. The evidence established that the plaintiffs only acquired such knowledge on 10 May 2012, when their attorney received the medical records necessary to assess negligence and causation. Applying section 12(3) of the Prescription Act and the Constitutional Court's interpretation in Dirk Links, the court found that prescription did not commence until the plaintiffs possessed sufficient facts to suspect fault and seek advice. The defendant's special plea was further found to be incompetent for failing to differentiate...

Citation
[2017] ZANWHC 11
Parties
Applicant: V M; Applicant: T M; Applicant: B S; Respondent: MEC of Health-North West
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 February 2017
Case Number
818/14
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription
Outcome
Defendant's special plea of prescription dismissed with costs.
Judges
A M Kgoele
Legal Topics
Prescription Act Section 12 3, Medical Negligence, Duty of Care, Special Plea, Causation
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Act Section 12 3 Medical Negligence Duty of Care Special Plea Causation

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

V M

Applicant

T M

Applicant

B S

Applicant

MEC of Health-North West

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Plea of Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' claims for damages against the defendant have prescribed under section 12(3) of the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant discharged the onus to prove that the plaintiffs had knowledge of all material facts from which the debt arose on 29 September 2009.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's special plea of prescription is competent given the failure to differentiate between the first plaintiff's personal and representative capacities.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving that the plaintiffs had knowledge of all material facts from which the debt arose on 29 September 2009. The evidence established that the plaintiffs only acquired such knowledge on 10 May 2012, when their attorney received the medical records necessary to assess negligence and causation. Applying section 12(3) of the Prescription Act and the Constitutional Court's interpretation in Dirk Links, the court found that prescription did not commence until the plaintiffs possessed sufficient facts to suspect fault and seek advice. The defendant's special plea was further found to be incompetent for failing to differentiate...

Court Disposition

Defendant's special plea of prescription dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The defendant's special plea is dismissed with costs.