1
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, MTHATHA)
CASE NO: 1013/2021
In the matter between:
B[…] N[…] obo A […] N[…] Plaintiff
and
MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL FOR
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EASTERN CAPE Defendant
__________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
__________________________________________________________________
RUSI J
[1] At a point between the system of periodic payments of damages (rent) and the
system of payment of capital awards a delicate balance between competing interests
must be made. There is no obvious choice between the two when measured against
the high value that th e Constitution ascribes to socio -economic rights.1
1 Member of the Executive Council for Health and Social Development, Gauteng v DZ obo WZ (CCT20/17) [2017]
ZACC 37; 2017 (12) BCLR 1528 (CC); 2018 (1) SA 335 (CC) (31 October 2017), paras 50 and 54.
2
[2] In a stated case submitted by the parties as envisaged in Uniform Rule 33(1)
I have been invited to determine whether the defendant is permitted in law to satisfy
a final court order sounding in money in periodic payments.
[3] The State’s obligation to comply with final orders of court sounding in money
is governed by section 3(3) (a) of the State Liability Amendment Act 14 of 2011 (the
State Liability Amendment Act) which provides as follows:
‘(3) (a) A final court order against a department for the payment of money must be satisfied -
(i) within 30 days of the date of the order becoming final; or
(ii) within the time period agreed upon by the judgment creditor and the accounting officer of the
department concerned. ’
[4] Mirroring these provisions, is section 38(1) (f) of the P ublic Finance
Management Act 1 of 1999 which enjoins the accounting officer of a department,
trading entity or constitutional institution to settle all contractual obligations and pay
all money owing, including intergovernmental claims, within the prescribed or
agreed period.
[5] In terms of section 36 of the Public Finance Managem ent Act, t he defendant
in the instant case is the accounting officer of the Department of Health . She is
therefore bound by the above quoted provisions of section 38(1) (f) of that same Act
and section 3(3) (a)(i) of the State Liability Amendment Act.
The common cause factual background
[6] The plaintiff , in her personal and representative capacities, sued the defendant
for general damages and special damages resulting from cerebral palsy that her
minor child, AN sustained during her birth at Madwaleni Hospital (the Hospital) .
The brain injury was as a result of the negligence of the medical staff of the Hospital.
3
[7] On 12 September 2022, this Court found the defendant liable for the plaintiff ’s
proven or agreed damages.2 The parties subsequently reac hed a compromise
encapsulated in a draft order that was submitted during the hearing of this matter, for
the payment of R4 773 595.00 ( four million seven hundred and seventy -three
thousand, five hundred and ninety -five rand) as and for the plaintiff ’s damages
comprised of the following:
7.1 R2 200 000.00 ( two million rand) for AN’s general damages .
7.2 R500 000.00 ( five hundred thousand rand) for the plaintiff ’s general damages .
7.3 R673 595.00 ( six hundred thousand, five hundred and ninety -five rand) for
AN’s transportation and mobility costs .
7.4 R1 400 000.00 ( one million four hundred thousand rand) for AN’s
architectural costs .
7.5 R320 519.62 ( three hundred and twenty thousand, five hundred and nineteen
rand sixty -two cents) being 7,5% of AN’s total award of R4 273 595.00 ( four
million two hundred and seventy -three thousand, five hundred and ninety -five
rand), in respect of the cost of the establishment, registration and management
of a trust for the benefit of AN.
[8] They also agreed that the defendant shall pay costs of suit, includi ng all
reserved costs, if any, with interest thereon at the legal rate from a date 30 (thirty)
days after allocatur and/or agreement to date of payment. The parties ’ agreement on
costs further provides that suc h costs will also include :
8.1 Costs of two counsel , where so employed, on scale C referred to in Rule 67A .
8.2 Costs of preparing for consultations and trial .
2 Per order of Dawood J dated 12 September 2022.
4
8.3 Travelling and accommodation expenses, if any, of the plaintiff ’s legal
representatives atte nding consultations with witness , and attending court .
8.4 Reservation fees, if any, together with the qualifying fees, if any, of the
plaintiff ’s expert witnesses in respect of whom notices in terms of Rule
36(9) (a) and (b) have been filed of record.
The trial
[9] The facts I have set out above together with the terms of the parties ’ agreement
as to the total amount of damages due to the plaintiff, and costs, were the parties ’
statement of agreed facts in their stated case . They formulated the issue for my
determination as being whether it is permissible in law for the defendant to pay the
plaintiff ’s damages as agreed by way of instalments.
[10] The defendant contends that the agreed amount of damages be paid in two
instalments that are six months apart, as follows – R3 000 000.00 ( three million rand)
as the initial instalment; and R1 773 595.00 ( one million seven hundred and seventy -
three thousand five hundred and ninety -five rand) six months thereafter.
[11] The plaintiff contends that the payment of the compromised damages must be
paid within 30 days of the order of this C ourt. The defendant, on the other hand,
contends that payment of the lumpsum of the agreed damages will materially and
detrimentally impact its ability to discharge its statutory and constitutional
obligations to provide access to healthcare to everyone ; and to deliver public health
care services to the inhabitants of the Eastern Cape Province . Further more, so the
defendant contends, it is just and equitable, and in the interests of all persons who
require access to public health care services that the compromised damages be paid
in instalments.
5
The parties ’ submissions on the stated case
[12] Mr Bodl ani who appeared on behalf of the plaintiff together with Mr Ntikinca ,
persisted with the contention that there is no legal basis for the order sought by the
defendant. In the plaintiff ’s heads of argument , it was f urther submit ted that the
powers of the defendant in satisfying a final order of court against it for payment of
money are circumscribed by section 3(3) (a) of the State Liability Amendment Act.
[13] The defendant ’s prayer for periodic payments, submitted Mr Bodlani , cannot
succeed , in any event, since she adduced no evidence to support the relief she seeks .
This evidence, according to Mr Bodlani , would be in relation to:
(a) How the lumpsum payment . specifically in medical negligence claims and not
in other claims aga inst it , materially and detrimentally impacts on its ability
to discharge its obligations .
(b) What shortfalls it incurred in the financial year and their impact on its ability
to discharge its obligation to provide access to healthcare to everyone in the
Eastern Cape Province .
(c) The effect of the historic payout of excessive amounts for medico -legal claims
over the years on the Eastern Cape Government ’s equitable share of national
revenue in the medium -term economic framework , the accruals and payables .
(d) The dire implications of any budgetary shortfalls on the Eastern Cape
Department of Health ’s ability to render health services.
[14] On behalf of the defendant, Mr Sambudla submitted that the defendant ’s
prayer for periodic payments of the agreed da mages is premised on its precarious
financial position and the ever-diminishing equitable share of the national revenue.
He extensivel y quoted passages from Member of the Executive Council for Finance,
Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Touris m (Eastern Cape) and
6
Others v Legal Practice Council and Others3 where the court addressed the issue of
the Department of Health ’s financial constraints as pleaded in that case and
submitted that that position has to date not changed. He further emphasized that the
period over which the payments are to be made in instalment is only six months. Mr
Sambudla went on to submit that this Court is empowered by section 173 of the
Consti tution, to make an appropriate order that will enable the defendant to liquidate
the debt by way of instalments as an alternative way of satisfying the final court
order.
[15] With reference to Social Justice Coalition v Minister of Police4, Mr Bodlani
submitted that the court ’s inherent powers in terms of section 173 of the Constitution
do not find application in the present case. An order permitting the defendant to pay
the agreed damages in instalments , he said, would be incompetent since the State
Liability Act makes provision for satisfaction of a court order sounding in money
within 30 days or within an agreed period of time. Since there is no agreement
between the parties, so the argument continued, the defendant is bound by the
provisions of secti on 3(3) (a)(i) of the State Liability Amendment Act to pay the
agreed damages within a period of 30 days from the date of the court ’s order.
[16] Mr Bodlani took the view that the defendant ’s contention that this Court may
exercise its inherent powers under section 173 of the Constitution is an attempt to
invite it to encroach on the separation of powers. According to Mr Bodlani , the focal
point for the purpo ses of the relief that the defendant seeks is the legislative
framework provided by the State Liability Amendment Act and the Public Finance
Management Act. I was also referred to various other cases to support the contention
3 Member o f the Executive Council for Finance, Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism (Eastern
Cape) and Others v Legal Practice Council and Others (2091/2021) [2022] ZAECMKHC 58; [2022] 3 All SA 730
(ECG); 2023 (2) SA 266 (ECMk) (21 June 2022) (‘MEC Finance ’);
4 Social Justice Coalition and Others v Minister of Police and Others (CCT 121/21) [2022] ZACC 27; 2022 (10)
BCLR 1267 (CC) (19 July 2022) , paras 81 -82 (‘Social Justice Coalition ’).
7
that the above quoted provisio ns of the State Liability Amendment Act and Public
Finance Management Act do not permit periodic payments.5
[17] In Mvanana6, one of the cases I was referred to, Zono AJ said the following
regarding the defendant ’s prayer of periodic payments :
‘[24] It admits of no doubt that the empowering provision requires that the payment of money in
terms of a final court order must be made within thirty (30) days of the order becoming final. The
provision does not open a room for staggered payment or payment in instalments. Provisions
imposing time limits and restrictions (without giving the court a power of extension) are as a rule
peremptory. Secondly, the use of the word “must ” in the text demonstrates the imperative nature
of the provision. Everything done af ter the prescribed time is null and void. Peremptory provision
requires exact compliance for it to have the stipulated legal consequences and any purported
compliance falling short of that is a nullity. Non -compliance with peremptory provision results in
a nullity.
[31] For the accounting officer of the department concerned to escape the strict provisions of
section 3(3)(a)(i) of the State Liability Amendment Act and section 38(1(f) of the Public Finance
Management Act, there must be an agreement in place between the judgment creditor and the
accounting officer of the department concerned. In the absence of an agreement between the parties
no deviation from the strict and imperative provisions aforesaid is permitted. Deviation in
circumstances where there i s no agreement may be null and void.
[33] The necessary pre -condition for the payment otherwise than in terms of section 3(3)(a)(i)
of State Liability Amendment Act is the existence of an agreement between the judgment creditor
and the accounting officer o f the department concerned. Under common law, necessary pre -
conditions that must exist before an administrative power can be exercised, are referred to as
jurisdictional fact . In the absence of such pre -conditions or jurisdictional facts, so it is said, th e
administrative authority effectively has no power to act at all. This proposition finds application
5 Member of the Executive Council for Health and Social Development, Gauteng v DZ obo WZ (CCT20/17) [2017]
ZACC 37; 2017 (12) BCLR 1528 (CC); 2018 (1) SA 335 (CC) (31 October 2017); M.M v Member of the Executive
Council for the Department of Health, Eastern Cape (920/2021) [2024] ZAECBHC 12 (27 May 2024) (‘Mvan ana’);
Phumla Stafana -Sohopi v MEC for Health (unreported) Bisho Case No. 330/2019 delivered on 13 December 2022 at
para 11; Mashinini v Member of the Executive Council for Health and Social Development Gauteng Provincial
Government (335/2021) [2023] ZASCA 53; 2023 (5) SA 137 (SCA) (18 April 2023) (‘Mashinini ’).
6 Supra, footnote 2.
8
in this case. I am now satisfied that the defendant has not made out a case for payment otherwise
than, in terms of section 3(3)(a)(i) of the State Liabil ity Amendment Act read with section 38(1)(f)
of the Public Finance Management Act. There is no justification for payment in instalments or
staggered payments. ’ (Footnotes omitted)
[18] In the discussion that follows I turn to determine the issue that the p arties have
delineated in the stated case.
Discussion
[19] Whether it is permissible in law for the defendant to satisfy a final court order
sounding in money by way of periodic payments is a matter of interpretation. But
there is one matter that I must dispose of first, and it is the submission that was made
on behalf of the defendant that this Court is entitled to exercise its inherent powers
in terms of section 173 of the Constitution and formulate an appropriate remedy
along the lines sought by the defendant.
[20] The submission made by Mr Bodlani that the inherent powers given to the
court under section 173 of the Constitution do not apply in this case was correctly
made. The inherent powers of the court under that section do not entitle it to do as it
pleases. As held in Social Justice Coalition7 this inherent power to regulate process
does not apply to substantive rights but rather to adjectival or procedural rights. A
court may exercise inherent jurisdiction to regulate its own process only when faced
with inadequate procedures and rules in the sense that they do not provide a
mechanism to deal with a particular scenario. It will, in appropriate cases, be entitled
to fashion a remedy to enable it to do justice between the parties.8 The court’s
inherent power does not extend to the assumption of jurisdiction not conferred upon
it by statute. It cannot be invoked to give a party a right it would otherwise not have.9
7 Supra, footnote 4.
8 Id, para 80.
9 Id, para 81.
9
[21] It is indeed so that neither the State Liability Amendment Act nor the Public
Finance Management Act provides for the satisfaction of a final court order sounding
in money by way of periodic payments .
[22] With that said, regard must be had to the fact that as an exception to the 30
day period that the two statut es stipulate as the default time within which the State
must satisfy a final court order sounding in money, they confer a right upon the
parties to agree on the period of time10 within which an order of court sounding in
money must be satisfied.
[23] It bears mentioning that an agreement is, by its nature, founded on the parties ’
animus contrahendi , reasonableness, fairness , good faith and practicality . I hold the
view that it is against these principles that the parties, in terms of section 3(3) (a)(ii)
would exercise their freedom to regulate their affairs concerning the period within
which a final court order sounding in money must be satisfied. The plain text of
section 3(3) (a)(ii) suggests that any period of satisfaction of an order sounding in
money that the parties agree to , would fall outside the prescribed 30 days. What the
provisions section 3(3) (a)(ii) do not do, however, is to prescribe the method of
payment over such period as may be agreed.
[24] None of the cases I have been referred to suggest that in the absence of an
agreement between the accounting officer of a department and the judgment creditor
the doors of periodic payments are closed to the departmental accounting officer. As
far as I could have ascertained from those authoritie s, periodic payments have been
considered in cases similar to the present , and it has been held that a prayer for
periodic payments is a special defence that must be pleaded and evidence led to
10 Emphasis intended.
10
establish the defendant ’s entitlement to the claim of making p ayments of damages
in instalments.11
[25] It may very well be that the court in Mvanana found that the accounting officer
will be obliged to satisfy the court order sounding in money within the prescribed
period of 30 days where there is no agreement between the accounting officer and
the plaintiff regarding the payments within a different period of time . But in similar
vein, and with reference to the already mentioned cases,12 the court found that since
no factual basis was laid by the defendant in that case for periodic payments, such
an order could not be granted. The case of Mvanana is, therefore , no authority for
the proposition that it is not permissible in law for the State to satisfy a final court
order sounding in mo ney by way of periodic payments in the absence of an
agreement referred to section 3(3) (a)(ii) of the State Liability Amendment Act and
section 38(1) (f) of the Public Finance Management Act.
[26] In Mashinini , another case I was referred to, the SCA dealt with the issue of
payment of the appellant ’s future medical and surgical expenses in kind in the sense
of the ‘public health care defence ’. The issue before that Court was not the
Department of Health ’s entitlement to pay the award of damages in periodic
payments. Mashinini is therefore distinguishable from the present case on facts and
principle.
[27] Sight must not be lost of the fact that u ppermost in the interpretative task in
the present case, is this Court ’s duty to fairly strike the delicate balance between the
individual interests of the plaintiff and those of the rest of the beneficiaries of the
right of access to health care services enshrined in section 27 of the Constitution ;
and the defendant ’s obliga tion to realize th is right. Section 39(2) of the Constitution
provides that when interpreting any legislation, every court, tribunal or forum must
11 Phumla Stafana -Sohopi v MEC for Health ; MEC Finace ; Mvanana , supra footnote 5.
12 Supra, footnote 5.
11
promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights. In Cool Ideas v
Hubbard ,13 Froneman J re -iterat ed that it is the accepted principle that the
interpretation that best protects or enhances a fundamental right should, where
reasonably possible, be preferred.14
[28] Furthermore, the principle of interpretation enunciated in Endumeni15
instructs that the contextual interpretation of a document requires that regard be had
to its specific nature and purpose, as well as the fact -specific background or the
circumstances attendant upon its coming into existence. A sensible meaning is to be
preferred to one that leads to insensible or unbusinesslike results or undermines the
apparent purpose of the document.16
[29] To my mind, both the provisions of section 3(3) (a) of the State Liability
Amendment Act and 38(1) (f) of the Public Finance Management Act serve to fo ster
respect for judicial authority, by requiring promptitude on the part of the State in
compl ying with court orders and fulfilling its obligations as determined in the orders
issued by the courts. They prom ote accountability , efficiency , and financial stability
in the administration of government departments ; as well as safeguard the rights of
a litigant who successfully litigates against the State .
[30] Upon an examination of all the authorities I was refe rred to, it seems to me
that the law as it stands is that if the defendant wishes to avail herself of periodic
payments as an alternative way of satisfying a final court order sounding in money
where there is no agreement to that effect, she must allege a nd prove this as a special
13 2014 (4) SA 474 (CC).
14 Id, at 516, para 150 and all the authorities referred to therein; see also the Independent Institute of Education Institute
of Education (Pty) Ltd v KwaZulu -Natal Law Society and Others , para 2.
15 Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality (920/2010) [2012] ZASCA 13; [2012] 2 All SA 262
(SCA); 2012 (4) SA 593 (SCA) (16 March 2012).
16 Id, para 18.
12
defence. The corollary must therefore be that the law permits such periodic payments
where a case has been made for such relief.
[31] Moreover, ubi jus, ibi remedium is a maxim which means that where there is
a right, there is a remedy. It has been held in regard to this maxim that ‘[i]f a plaintiff
has a right, he must of necessity have a means to vindicate and maintain it, and a
remedy, if he is injured in the exerc ise or enjoyment of it; and indeed it is a vain
thing to imagine a right without a remedy; for want of right and want of remedy are
reciprocal. ’17 And, ‘[t]he greatest absurdity imaginable in law is — that a man hath
a right to a thing for which the law giv es him no remedy; which is in truth as great
an absurdity, as to say, the having of right, in law, and having no right, are in effect
the same. ’18
[32] For these reasons, a proposition which suggests that there is no avenue in law
for periodic payments cannot be sustained. In any event, it deviates from the
principle that the Full C ourt of this Division in MEC for Finance19 re-affirmed when
it said:
[64] In DZ the Constitutional Court explained that the corollary of the “once and for all ” rule is
that a court is obliged to award these damages in a lump sum. They proceeded to examine the
application of the “once and for all ” rule and concluded at para [54]:
“Although the ‘once and for all ’ rule, with its bias towards individualism and the free market,
cannot be said to be in conflict with our constitutional value system, it can also not be said that the
periodic payment or rent system is out of sync with the hig h value the Constitution ascribes to
socio -economic rights. ”’
17 Ashby v White [1703] 92 ER 126 at 136.
18 Dixon v Harrison [1823] 124 ER 958 at 964. Bo th Ashby and Dixon were quoted with approval by Mh lantla J in
Masemola v Special Pensions Appeal Board and Another (CCT260/18) [2019] ZACC 39; 2019 (12) BCLR 1520
(CC); 2020 (2) SA 1 (CC) (15 October 2019)
19 Supra, footnote 3.
13
[33] Whether the defendant has, in this matter , made out a case for an order that
she pays the agreed damages in periodic payments it the question I turn to next. In
this regard, it was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that since no evidence has
been led by the defendant to substantiate the relief it seeks, her case in that regard
must fail.
[34] Regarding how the defence of periodic payments must be asserted, the court ,
in MEC Finance20 went further and said:
‘[69] The prayer for periodic payments constitutes a special defence to the “once and for all ” rule,
which must be properly pleaded. Evidence must be led to substantiate the defence and the court
must, after consideration of all the relevant evidence craft an ap propriate remedy for the individual
plaintiff. This will require an assessment of medical evidence as to the nature and condition of the
injured party, the extent of the immediate need, which would vary from one victim to another, the
time of the likely fu ture need and the extent and time of the relevant instalments. Each individual
case must be considered on the basis of the particular circumstances pertaining to it. ’
[35] That the defendant , in its plea, pleaded the defence of periodic payment s of
any awa rd of damages is not subject to any controversy. However, in the stated case
presented, t here are no agreed facts between the parties regarding, inter alia, the
extent of the AN’s immediate need , and what the proposed first instalment will be
able to cover of the agreed damages . Neither are there any facts which provide a
factual basis for the contention that the defendant makes that paying the lumpsum of
the agreed damages in this case will materially and detrimentally impact its ability
to discharge its statutory and constitutional obligations of providing access to health
care to the inhabitants of the Eastern Cape Province.
20 Id.
14
[36] Smith J, in Phumla Stafana Sohopi v MEC for Health , reiterated that factual
basis must be laid for the deviation from statute which a party contends for.21 The
Learned Judge cautioned against mechanically applying to all cases involving
medical malpractice the approach of an acceptance as a general position th at the
Department of Health ’s precarious financial position is public knowledge, and
therefore no evidence need be led to substantiate the defence of periodic payments.
The Learned Judge put it this way:
‘The comments regarding the department ’s precarious financial position . . . cannot be applied by
rote to all cases where such a defence has been pleaded. . .’22
[37] The defendant ha s agreed to compensate the plaintiff not in kind as in the
sense of the public health care defence , but in monetary terms to the extent agreed
by the parties in the draft order that I was presented with . A general , unsubstantiated
assertion regarding her budgetary constraints and obligation towards other
beneficiaries of the right enshrined in section 27 does not assist her. This is not to
say it is not acknowledged that the defendant ’s coffers continue to be significantly
affected by the extent of medical malpractice litigation .23 But a s Eksteen J observed
in MEC Finance ,24 it is quintessential of any enterprise that the payment of its debt
will result in less money for the implementation of its business.
[38] Therefore, w ithout any evidential basis for the periodic payments contended
for, it cannot be just to accede to the defendant ’s request in this case , for that would
mean that AN’s interests have arbitrarily been relegated to insignificance. For this
reason, the defendant ’s request for an order that she pays the agreed damages set out
above in instalments must be turned down.
21 Footnote 5, supra.
22 Id, para 7.
23 T N obo B N v Member of Executive Council for Health, Eastern Cape (36/2017) [2023] ZAECBHC 4 (7 February
2023), para 147; Member of the Executive Council for Health, Gauteng Provincial Government v PN [2021] ZACC
6; 2021 (6) BCLR 584 (CC) .
24 Footnote 3 supra, para 50 .
15
[39] In the result, I make the following order:
1. The defendant shall pay the sum of R4 773 595.00 (four million, seven
hundred and seventy -three thousand, five hundred and ninety -five rand) as
and for the plaintiff ’s damages, comprised as follows:
1.1 R2 200 000.00 (two million, two hundred thousand rand), in respect of
AN’s general damages.
1.2 R500 000.00 (five hundred thousand rand) in respect of the plaintiff ’s
personal general damages.
1.3 R673 595. 00 (six hundred and seventy -three thousand, five hundred
and ninety -five rand) in respect of AN’s transportation and mobility
related costs.
1.4 R1 400 000.00 (one million four hundred thousand rand), in respect of
AN’s architectural costs.
2. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff the amount of R320 519. 62 (three
hundred and twenty thousand, five hundred and nineteen rand, sixty -two
cents) for the establishment, registrati on and management of a trust to be
established for the benefit of the minor child, which amount is calculated on
the basis of 7,5 % of R4 273 595. 00 (four million, two hundred and seventy -
three thousand, five hundred and ninety -five rand) being minor chil d’s total
award.
3. The abovementioned amounts as referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 above shall
be paid within 30 days of this order together with interest thereon at the
prevailing legal rate calculated from 30 days of the date of the order to date
of fin al payment thereof.
4. The Defendant shall pay costs of suit, together with all reserved costs, if any,
and together with interest thereon at the prevailing legal rate from a date 30
16
days after allocator and/or agreement to date of payment, which costs wil l
furthermore include:
4.1 Costs of two counsel, w here utilized, on scale C in terms of Rule 67A.
4.2 Costs of preparing for consultations and trial .
4.3 Travelling and accommodation expenses, if any, of the plaintiff ’s legal
representatives attending consultations with witnesses and attending
court .
4.4 Reservation fees, if any, together with the qualifying fees, if any, of the
plaintiff ’s expert witnesses in respect of whom notices in terms of rule
36(9) (a) and (b) have been filed of record.
5. The aforementioned amounts are to be paid to the trust account of the
plaintiff ’s attorney of record, Dayimani Inc, with the following details:
Account Name: M. Dayimani Inc.
Bank: First National Bank
Account Number: 6[…]
Branch Code: 2[…]
Reference: N[…]
6. The damages relating to AN’s loss of earning capacity, caregivers and case
management are postponed to a date to be arranged with the Registrar of this
Court and are separated from the balance of the heads of damages which form
part of the public health defence.
7. The s eparated heads of damages which form part of the public healthcare
defence are postponed sine die .
17
__________________
L. RUSI
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Appearances :
For the plaintiff : A Bodlani SC
L Ntikinca
Instructed by : M. Dayimani Inc, Mthatha
For the defendant : L Sambudla
Instructed by : Zilwa Attorneys , Mthatha
Date heard : 19 November 2024
Date delivered : 25 March 2025