A.S v Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Health KwaZulu-Natal (7630/2013P) [2025] ZAKZPHC 115 (4 November 2025)

Case Note

A[…] S[...] v MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH KWAZULU-NATAL 7630/2013P (KZN) [2025]

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its implications regarding the judicial discretion in allowing the reopening of a case after it has been closed and the examination of evidence at different stages of a trial. The matter highlights critical issues of procedural fairness, the necessity of thorough representations to the court, and the right to present a complete case in the interests of justice. The significance lies primarily in the legal standards established for determining when a closed case may be reopened and under what circumstances further evidence can be permitted, which has broader implications for future cases concerning procedural fairness and justice.

Cases Cited

• Bellstedt v South African Railways 1936 CPD 397
• Embling v Two Oceans Aquarium CC 2000 (3) SA 691 (C)
• R v Zackey 1945 AD 505
• Oosthuizen v Stanley 1938 AD 322
• Mkwanazi v Van der Merwe 1970 (1) SA 609 (AD)

Legislation Cited

None specified.

Rules of Court Cited

None specified.

HEADNOTE

Summary

In this judgment, the plaintiff sought to reopen her closed case regarding a claim for damages for the birth of her child with cerebral palsy. Originally, the defendant had consented to the reopening under specific terms, but later opposed additional evidence from two new expert witnesses. The court had to weigh the reasons for the additional evidence, its materiality, and the implications of reopening the case, ultimately deciding in favor of the plaintiff.

Key Issues

The key legal issues addressed in the judgment included: 1. The criteria for exercising judicial discretion when allowing the reopening of a closed case especially after the defendant has closed their case. 2. The materiality and potential impact of newly proposed expert evidence on the outcome of the trial. 3. The balance of prejudice between the plaintiff and defendant in permitting or denying the reopening of the case.

Held

The court held in favor of the plaintiff, granting leave to reopen her case, allowing further expert evidence from Professors Anthony and Smith, as well as recalling the plaintiff for further testimony. The costs of the application were ordered to be costs in the cause, indicating that the party ultimately responsible for the costs would be determined by the eventual outcome of the trial.

THE FACTS

The case revolves around the plaintiff, who seeks damages following the birth of her child with cerebral palsy. The plaintiff had closed her case after presenting evidence, while the defendant was midway through its presentation of evidence when the trial was adjourned. Prior to the adjournment, there was an agreement allowing the plaintiff to reopen her case for specific evidence regarding her feelings of fetal movement, and blood test results that could implicate the defendant’s actions.

As these blood test results emerged late during the trial, the plaintiff sought to add further expert testimonies that were deemed critical to the assertion of when the injurious events affecting her child occurred. The defendant initially consented to the reopening but later opposed broader applications to introduce additional evidence from new experts after an extended delay in the proceedings.

THE ISSUES

The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff could reopen her case to present additional expert evidence, and if so, under what circumstances. Key legal questions included the materiality of the new evidence, the timing and reasons behind the previous inability to introduce this evidence, and the potential prejudice that could arise for both parties in either permitting or denying the reopening.

ANALYSIS

In reaching its decision, the court examined the precedents regarding the reopening of closed cases, emphasizing the discretionary power of courts to allow for new evidence even after one party has closed its case. The court applied criteria from relevant case law, notably considering the materiality of the proposed evidence and any potential prejudice to either party. The judgment stressed the importance of the additional evidence to introduce clarity regarding the timing and nature of the injury to the plaintiff's child.

It was noted that the plaintiff had adequate grounds for reopening, given that recent blood test results vital to the claim’s foundation were not available previously. Moreover, the court observed that allowing this evidence could prove critical in resolving central issues of liability and causation, which were not yet conclusively determined. The court also took note of the defendant’s lack of significant prejudice, as they had already consented to the reopening under narrower terms.

REMEDY

The court granted leave for the plaintiff to reopen her case, including the introduction of further expert witnesses, specifically Professors Anthony and Smith, and to allow the plaintiff to testify once more. The decision was anchored on the need to ensure that the court arrived at an equitable resolution, weighing all pertinent evidence.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The judgment establishes key legal principles regarding the reopening of a closed case, particularly:

1. The discretion of the trial court to permit reopening must be exercised judicially, considering various factors including the materiality of the proposed evidence.
2. The reasons for not presenting evidence during the initial phases can be crucial in assessing applications for reopening a case.
3. The need for procedural fairness must be balanced against the desire for judicial finality, ensuring that all relevant evidence is considered to secure the pursuit of justice.

The case serves as an important reference for future instances where parties may seek to introduce additional evidence after a case has been closed, reinforcing the courts' commitment to justice over procedural technicalities.