J.M.M and Another v MEC for Health - Gauteng (9253/2017) [2022] ZAGPPHC 249 (12 April 2022)

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 >> 2022 >> [2022] ZAGPPHC 249 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## J.M.M and Another v MEC for Health - Gauteng (9253/2017) [2022] ZAGPPHC 249 (12 April 2022) J.M.M and Another v MEC for Health - Gauteng (9253/2017) [2022] ZAGPPHC 249 (12 April 2022) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2022_249.html sino date 12 April 2022 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 GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO:9253/2017 In the matter between: M[….], J[….] M[….]. First Applicant First Plaintiff ADVOCATE H. KRIEL obo M[….] Second Applicant/Second Plaintiff M[….] M[….] and MEC FOR HEALTH – GAUTENG Respondent JUDGMENT MBONGWE J: INTRODUCTION [1]        This application for leave to appeal has been brought by the First and the Second Applicant (First and Second Plaintiffs in the initial proceedings). The appeal is sought against the whole of the judgment of this court delivered on the 10 September 2021, dismissing the Applicants’ claims. [2]       I have read and considered the Applicants’ grounds for leave to appeal and, as a result of the Applicant’s counsel’s referral, at the hearing of this application, to what he advised was a record of the hospital theatre showing that the theatre had been available for the performance of a caesarean section when it was found that there was foetal distress, I am of the view that It will accord with justice to grant leave to appeal. It has to be stated, however, that at the trial, a record showing the converse was referred to by the Respondent’s counsel and there was no contestation from the Applicant’s counsel. The impression was that the theatre had not been available until about 23h:15, that is, approximately 25 minutes after the baby had been born virginally. [3]        I am of the view that the appeal ought to be heard as contemplated in section 18 of the Superior Courts Act. ORDER [4]       In the light of the afore-going, the following order is made: 1. Leave to appeal to the Full Court of this division is granted. 2. Costs to be costs in the appeal. M. MBONGWE J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA. APPEARANCES For the Applicants:                 Adv G.J Strydom SC Instructed by:                          Edeling Van Niekerk Inc Clearview Office Park Block A, Wilhelmina Avenue, Constantia Kloof Roodepoort, Johannesburg. For the Respondent:               Adv D.J Joubert SC with him Adv L Adams (Ms) Instructed by:                          The State Attorney 10 th Floor, North State Building 95 Albertina Sisulu Street Cnr Kruis Street Johannesburg. DATE OF HEARING: 02 December 2021 JUDGMENT ELECTRONICALLY TRANSMITTED TO THE PARTIES/ LEGAL REPRESENTANTIVES ON 12 APRIL 2022. sino noindex make_database footer start