South Africa Case Law

A.W obo M.U.W v Member of the Executive Council for Health, Eastern Cape (Quantum) (288/2019)

A.W obo M.U.W v Member of the Executive Council for Health, Eastern Cape (Quantum) (288/2019) [2025] ZAECBHC 15 (27 June 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

288/2019

Judge

Hartle

The court found that the defendant's reliance on an 'undertaking to pay' remedy, divorced from the public healthcare defence and unsupported by a properly pleaded case or factual evidence, was untenable. The defendant failed to demonstrate why the common law should be developed in the present circumstances to permit such a remedy, nor did she provide evidence that the agreed private healthcare costs were unreasonable. The court emphasized that development of the common law in this area requires a case-specific factual foundation and cannot be applied automatically from previous judgments. The…

Source excerpt

• Medical Negligence
• Future Medical Expenses
• Once And For All Rule
• Constitutional Development Of Common Law
• State Liability
• Undertaking To Pay

Rensburg and Another v Cilliers (1705/2021)

Rensburg and Another v Cilliers (1705/2021) [2024] ZAFSHC 290 (20 September 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1705/2021

Judge

JP Daffue

The court held that the exception must be dismissed. The facts pleaded in the special plea must be accepted as true for purposes of the exception. The plaintiffs' debt became due when the child was conceived or when patrimonial loss was first incurred, not only at birth. The authorities support the view that the cause of action is complete as soon as some damage is suffered, and all damages, whether already sustained or prospective, must be claimed in one action. The plaintiffs were aware of the relevant facts by 30 January 2018 and should have instituted action within three years from that d…

Source excerpt

• Extinctive Prescription
• Patrimonial Loss
• Wrongful Pregnancy
• Once And For All Rule
• Exception Procedure

Lumkwana v Member of Executive Council Department of Health, Eastern Cape Province and Another (362/2022)

Lumkwana v Member of Executive Council Department of Health, Eastern Cape Province and Another (362/2022) [2024] ZAECBHC 21 (27 August 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

362/2022

Judge

N Cengani-Mbakaza

The High Court upheld a misjoinder plea but rejected a once-and-for-all-rule defence in a salary-breach damages claim, with no costs order.

• Misjoinder
• Once And For All Rule
• Breach Of Contract
• Damages
• Joinder Of Parties
• Once-and-for-all-rule

Mhlatshana v Member of Executive Council for Health Eastern Cape Province (1433/2015)

Mhlatshana v Member of Executive Council for Health Eastern Cape Province (1433/2015) [2024] ZAECMHC 19 (18 March 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

1433/2015

Judge

Govindjee

The plaintiff discharged the onus of proving the need and quantum for future caregiver support, domestic and auxiliary services, and transportation expenses. The defendant's public healthcare defence failed due to lack of cogent evidence that equivalent services would be available at the requisite standard and cost in the public sector. The state's proposed system for caregiver provision was vague, untested, and lacked operational detail, failing to meet the threshold required by law. The court declined to develop the common law as requested by the defendant, finding that the plaintiff is ent…

Source excerpt

• Public Healthcare Defence
• Quantum Of Damages
• Future Medical Expenses
• Constitutional Right To Healthcare
• Caregiver Support
• Once And For All Rule

Jomane Eiendomme (Pty) Ltd v van Zyl N.O and Others (M348/2020)

Jomane Eiendomme (Pty) Ltd v van Zyl N.O and Others (M348/2020) [2023] ZANWHC 243 (27 November 2023)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

M348/2020

Judges

FMM Reid, A Reddy

High Court granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal on a novel procedural issue after rescission of a section 58 Magistrates’ Court judgment.

• Magistrates Court Act Section 58
• Leave To Appeal
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Functus Officio
• Once And For All Rule
• Leave-to-appeal

Mmabasotho Christinah Olesitse N.O. v Minister of Police (CCT 183/22)

Mmabasotho Christinah Olesitse N.O. v Minister of Police (CCT 183/22) [2023] ZACC 35; 2024 (2) BCLR 238 (CC) (14 November 2023)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 183/22

Judges

Zondo, Maya, Kollapen, Madlanga, Majiedt, Makgoka, Mathopo, Potterill, Theron

The Constitutional Court held that the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal erred in applying the 'once and for all' rule to bar a subsequent claim for malicious prosecution where the claims for unlawful arrest/detention and malicious prosecution are distinct causes of action with different legal elements. The application of the rule in this context amounted to a development of the common law, which was not undertaken in accordance with the Constitution. The courts failed to consider whether the rule suffered any deficiency at odds with the Bill of Rights, particularly section 34, which gua…

Source excerpt

• Once And For All Rule
• Malicious Prosecution
• Unlawful Arrest And Detention
• Section 34 Access To Courts
• Development Of Common Law
• Prescription

TN obo BN v Member of the Executive Council for Health, Eastern Cape (36/2017)

TN obo BN v Member of the Executive Council for Health, Eastern Cape (36/2017) [2023] ZAECBHC 3; 2023 (3) SA 270 (ECB) (7 February 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

36/2017

Judge

Griffiths

The court found that the common law should be developed to accommodate the public healthcare and undertaking to pay remedies in medical negligence claims against the state. This development is justified under sections 39(2) and 173 of the Constitution, as the existing rules (once and for all and monetary damages) increasingly undermine the state's ability to fulfil its constitutional obligations to provide healthcare to the broader population. The court determined that the appropriate standard for public healthcare services is a reasonable standard, not necessarily equivalent to private secto…

Source excerpt

• Medical Negligence
• Public Healthcare Remedy
• Development Of Common Law
• Once And For All Rule
• Undertaking To Pay
• Contingency Fees

Singh and Another v Progressive Compliance Fund and Others (24848/2021)

Singh and Another v Progressive Compliance Fund and Others (24848/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 35 (19 January 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

24848/2021

Judge

ML Senyatsi

The court made three arbitration awards orders of court, granted indemnity to Ms Singh, and dismissed attempts to hold two respondents jointly liable.

• Arbitration Award Enforcement
• Partnership Liability
• Non Joinder
• Once And For All Rule
• Suretyship Indemnity
• Arbitration-award-enforcement

Olesitse NO v Minister of Police (470/2021)

Olesitse NO v Minister of Police (470/2021) [2022] ZASCA 90 (15 June 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

470/2021

Judges

Zondi, Dambuza, Nicholls, Makaula, Salie-Hlophe

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a later malicious prosecution claim was barred by the once and for all rule because it arose from the same event as an earlier arrest and detention claim.

• Once And For All Rule
• Malicious Prosecution
• Unlawful Arrest And Detention
• Duplication Of Actions
• Res Judicata
• Once-and-for-all-rule

Special Investigation Unit and Another v Msagala and Others (GP05/2020)

Special Investigation Unit and Another v Msagala and Others (GP05/2020) [2021] ZAST 7 (30 April 2021)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

GP05/2020

Judge

L T Modiba

The Special Tribunal found that the requirements for res judicata and lis pendens were not met. The parties are the same, but the cause of action and relief sought in the forfeiture application and the present action differ. The forfeiture order was limited to the listed assets as proceeds of unlawful activities, while the action seeks to hold the defendants personally liable for the deficit and other amounts. Relaxing the cause of action requirement to allow issue estoppel would not serve equity and fairness, especially given the defendants' vacillatory litigation conduct. The pending appeal…

Source excerpt

• Res Judicata
• Lis Pendens
• Once And For All Rule
• Forfeiture Of Assets
• Breach Of Employment Duties