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

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPPHC 465 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Du Preez N.O obo Shabangu v MEC for Health, Gauteng (58051/2018) [2025] ZAGPPHC 465 (2 May 2025) Du Preez N.O obo Shabangu v MEC for Health, Gauteng (58051/2018) [2025] ZAGPPHC 465 (2 May 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_465.html sino date 2 May 2025 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 plaintiff’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 plaintiff’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 experts: 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: 12445 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 sino noindex make_database footer start