Decided Cases

ARTIKEL VERSKYN IN BEELD 4 MAART 2013

HOSPITAAL SKIK NA EIS OOR INSPUITING

- Jeanne-Marie Versluis

'n Man wat glo op die verkeerde plek in sy boud ingespuit is en daarom nou chronies pyn in sy regtervoet het, het 'n skikkingsooreenkoms met die Netcare - Unitas hospitaal in Centurion bereik.

Die inspuiting deur 'n verpleegster in die hospitaal het hom senuweeskade besorg.  P.A. van Biljon (68), 'n inwoner van Eldoraigne Centurion, en die hospitaal het ses jaar na die beweerde voorval 'n skikking buite die Hooggeregshof in Pretoria bereik waarvan die bepalings onbekend is.

Lia de Beer 'n Direkteur van die prokureursfirma Snyman de Jager ingelyf in Gauteng wat namens van Biljon in sy skadevergoedingseis teen die hospitaal opgetree het, het by navraag gese die saak is van die hofrol verwyder en sy kan nie daaroor uitbrei nie.

van Biljon het sowat R3.7 miljoen van die private hospitaal geeis.  Luidens sy eisbesonderhede is hy op 20 Februarie 2007 vir 'n gastro - intestinale operasie in die hospitaal opgeneem.  Op Februarie 2007 het ene "me T Ngobeni", 'n verpleegster, hom 'n petidien inspuiting in die regterboud gegee.

Sy het glo 'n senuwee raak gesteek.  van Biljon het glo dadelik 'n steekpyn in sy regterbeen gehad en alle gevoel in en om sy groottoon verloor.  Hy het dadelik bewegingskrag in sy regtervoet verloor. Sowat 'n maand later het hy glo erge pyn in sy regterkuit en-voet gehad.  Sy regtervoet pyn chronies.  Die pyn word deur beweging vererger.  Hy ly aan "drop foot", word beweer.

In van Biljon se hofstukke word gese Ngobeni was grof nalatig omdat sy nie basiese mediese prosedures gevolg het om die presiese plek vir die inspuiting vas te stel nie.  van Biljon moes glo behandeling weens die besering ondergaan en het terselfdetyd R50 000.00 inkomste verloor omdat hy nie by die werk was nie.  Hy kon ook nie meer tuinwerk doen of fietsry nie.

Die hospitaal het in sy verweerskrif gese Ngobeni het "van tyd tot tyd" verpleegsorg en-dienste aan die hospitaal gelewer.  Die hospitaal erken Ngobeni het die petidien - inspuiting gegee, maar ontken alle ander bewerings.

 

 

MITCHELL VS CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY
SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

- Johan Muller

A large amount of ambiguity was created during a previous Court case in the form of City of Tshwane vs Mathabate, during this case the Court correctly held that municipalities have a lien against immovable property of an owner for debts due to them.  The Court however did not go so far as to suggest that a successor in title to that property was liable for the debts of a previous owner of that property.

The general view after the aforementioned case in legal circles was that although the municipality had a lien with regards to the immovable property for outstanding debts due and payable to them, this lien is only applicable as long as the property was registered in the name of the indebted party.  As soon as the municipality issues a clearance certificate for purposes of transfer of this property and transfer is effected, the lien with regards to the immovable property falls away.

The aforementioned however does not mean that the municipality has no claim against the previous owner/seller, it merely means that the lien with regards to the property no longer exists and it further means that they cannot keep the new owner liable or attach his property to satisfy their claim against the previous owner.   Irrespective of the aforementioned interpretation, certain municipalities interpreted the aforementioned case to mean that a property owner is liable for the debts of his predecessors in title because of this lien.

Fortunately the Gauteng Division of the High Court has now confirmed that the interpretation of the municipalities is incorrect in handing down a judgement in the matter of Mitchell vs City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality stating the following :

  1. A Successor in title to a property does not become a co-principle debtor regarding the principal debt to the municipality and is not liable for the payment of historical debts incurred by the previous owners or occupiers of the property.  In other words current owners are not liable for the debts of previous owners;
  2. The security of the lien held by the municipality extinguished by the transfer of a property to a subsequent owner;
  3. The outstanding debt owing by the previous owner, remains owing by that owner.  It is unaffected by the transfer of the property to a new owner.  So it remains due by the owner that incurred the debt to the municipality.