The Gauteng health department has been ordered to pay more than R1.6 million in damages after failing to provide essential medical treatment and assistive devices to a child living with cerebral palsy.
In April 2024, the Johannesburg High Court instructed the department to supply the required equipment within three months, following a settlement agreement between the child’s mother and the department. The agreement included an enforcement clause allowing the mother to seek a financial payout if the department did not meet the deadline.
The department failed to comply with the order by the July 18, 2024 deadline. As a result, the mother approached the court, requesting payment of R1,629,230.
During proceedings, counsel for the applicant argued that the department had acknowledged missing the court-imposed deadline and had no valid legal defence. The only explanation offered was internal miscommunication between departments, which the applicant’s legal team said could not justify non-compliance.
In its defence, the department claimed the application for payment was premature and based on a misunderstanding of the court order. It further argued that the request effectively sought to convert healthcare obligations into monetary compensation unfairly. The department asked the court for another opportunity to fulfil its obligations, describing its failure as an innocent administrative error rather than deliberate disregard.
However, Acting Judge PJM Mogotsi found that the settlement terms were clear about both the deadline and the consequences of failing to meet it. He stated that the enforcement clause was triggered simply by non-compliance, not by proof of wilful contempt.
The judge rejected the department’s argument that the clause applied only to partial non-compliance. He also criticised the explanation of internal miscommunication, noting that it lacked detail and accountability.
Mogotsi described the department’s defence as a last-minute attempt to avoid financial responsibility for what he called systemic failure. He emphasised that, according to Constitutional Court principles, the state must be held to the highest standard when it comes to obeying court orders.
The court ultimately ruled in favour of the mother and ordered the department to pay the damages.
About The Author
