Zondo v MEC for Health of the Gauteng Provincial Government (25644/2014) [2016] ZAGPJHC 243 (2 September 2016)

Zondo v MEC for Health of the Gauteng Provincial Government (25644/2014) [2016] ZAGPJHC 243 (2 September 2016)

The court held that the claims for future medical expenses and future loss of earnings are, as established in Van Gool, claims of the minor child and not of the parents. The minor, represented by the plaintiff as guardian, is entitled to claim compensation for patrimonial loss resulting from the alleged negligence. The principle in Van Gool is binding and has not been overruled. Prescription does not affect the minor's claims until a year after majority is attained. The defendant's proposed amendment to introduce a prescription defence is therefore unsustainable and must be refused. The plaintiff, however, is primarily responsible for the postponement of the trial due to lack of urgency...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPJHC 243
Parties
Plaintiff: Zondo, Nwabisa; Defendant: MEC for Health of the Gauteng Provincial Government
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 September 2016
Case Number
25644/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Application to Amend Plea; Separation of Issues Under Rule 33(4); Costs of Amendment and Postponement
Outcome
Defendant's application to amend its plea is refused with costs. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement of the trial.
Judges
WHG van der Linde
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Amendment of Pleadings, Damages for Medical Negligence, Representative Capacity, Future Medical Expenses, Future Loss of Earnings
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Act Amendment of Pleadings Damages for Medical Negligence Representative Capacity Future Medical Expenses Future Loss of Earnings

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zondo, Nwabisa

Plaintiff

MEC for Health of the Gauteng Provincial Government

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Application to Amend Plea; Separation of Issues Under Rule 33(4); Costs of Amendment and Postponement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant may amend its plea to introduce a prescription defence against the plaintiff's claims.
  2. 2 Whether the claims for future medical expenses and future loss of earnings are claims of the minor or the parents.
  3. 3 Who is responsible for the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement of the trial.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the claims for future medical expenses and future loss of earnings are, as established in Van Gool, claims of the minor child and not of the parents. The minor, represented by the plaintiff as guardian, is entitled to claim compensation for patrimonial loss resulting from the alleged negligence. The principle in Van Gool is binding and has not been overruled. Prescription does not affect the minor's claims until a year after majority is attained. The defendant's proposed amendment to introduce a prescription defence is therefore unsustainable and must be refused. The plaintiff, however, is primarily responsible for the postponement of the trial due to lack of urgency...

Court Disposition

Defendant's application to amend its plea is refused with costs. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement of the trial.

Orders

  • The issue of the defendant's application dated 26 August 2016 to amend his plea to introduce the plea of prescription is separated from the other issues on the pleadings, and the trial of those other issues is postponed sine die.
  • The plaintiff is directed to pay the costs wasted as a result of the postponement, including the costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel.