Du Preez N.O obo Shabangu v MEC for Health, Gauteng (58051/2018) [2025] ZAGPPHC 465 (2 May 2025)

30 Reportability
Civil Procedure

Brief Summary

Variation of Order — Correction of patent error — Application for variation under Rule 42(1)(b) — Court omitted to specify costs in original order — Plaintiff's notice highlighting omission — Court satisfied with compliance with Rule 42(3) — Order varied to include specific costs, including those of the curator ad litem and expert witnesses.

SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA






IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

CASE NO: 58051/2018
DOH: 07 – 11 AUGUST 2023
DECIDED: 12 FEBRUARY 2024
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
DATE: 02 MAY 2025
SIGNATURE:


In the matter between:

ADV. W du PREEZ N.O obo BUSISIWE REBONE SHABANGU Plaintiff

And

MEC FOR HEALTH, GAUTENG Defendant

—————————————————————————————————————
VARIATION OF ORDER IN TERMS OF RULE 42 (1) (b)

—————————————————————————————————————
Bam J

1. This is a variation of the order issued by this court on 12 February 2024 to
correct a patent error or omission.

2. In terms of Rule 42 (1) (b) of the Uniform Rules of Court, (Rules):

‘(1) The court may, in addition to any other powers it may have, mero motu or
upon the application of any party affected, rescind or vary:
(a) ...
(b) an order or judgment in which there is an ambiguity, or a patent error or
omission, but only to the extent of such ambiguity, error or omission.

Omission

3. Upon granting the order, this court omitted to specify the various costs,
including the costs of the curator ad litem . Following the p laintiff’s notice drawing the
omission /patent error to the attention of the court and the Defendant, this court is
satisfied that there has been compliance with Rule 42(3). Accordingly, the Order is
hereby varied to read as follows:

Order

1. The issue of liability and quantum is separated in terms of Rule 33(4) of the
Uniform Rules of Court. Quantum is postponed sine die .

2. The defendant is ordered to pay 100% of the plaintiff’s proven and/or agreed
damages.

3. The defendant is ordered to pay the pl aintiff’s taxed or agreed costs, which
costs shall include but are not limited to the costs of trial from 7 August to 11 August
2023, including,

3.1 the reasonable preparation costs of experts and any addenda (if any) to the
reports of the following expert s:

3.1.1 Dr Birrell – Orthopedic Surgeon
3.1.2 Dr Botha – Specialist Physician; and
3.1.3 Ms Jansen van Rensburg – Registered Nurse; and

4. The costs of the curator ad litem.

5. The costs are to be paid to the credit of the plaintiff’s attorney’s trust account,
the details of which are:

Name: Werner Boshoff Inc
Bank: Standard Bank
Type: Trust Account
Code: 012445
Acc No. 0[...]
Ref: W Boshoff/MP/MAT891


——————————————— ————
N.N BAM
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
GAUTENG DIVISION PRETORIA


Appearances:

Counsel for the Plaintiff: Adv J.S.M Güldenpfennig with him Adv D.P
Viller
Instructed by: Werner Boshoff Inc.
Brooklyn, Pretoria

Counsel for the Defendant: Adv S Malatji
Instructed by: The State Attorney Pretoria