Quote of the week
Mr Zuma is no ordinary litigant. He is the former President of the Republic, who remains a public figure and continues to wield significant political influence, while acting as an example to his supporters… He has a great deal of power to incite others to similarly defy court orders because his actions and any consequences, or lack thereof, are being closely observed by the public. If his conduct is met with impunity, he will do significant damage to the rule of law. As this Court noted in Mamabolo, “[n]o one familiar with our history can be unaware of the very special need to preserve the integrity of the rule of law”. Mr Zuma is subject to the laws of the Republic. No person enjoys exclusion or exemption from the sovereignty of our laws… It would be antithetical to the value of accountability if those who once held high office are not bound by the law.
Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector including Organs of State v Zuma and Others (CCT 52/21) [2021] ZACC 18
Con Court hears case on right not to be refused emergency medical treatment on 26/02/15
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
Charles Oppelt v The Head: Health, Department of Health, Provincial Administration: Western Cape
CCT 185/14
Date of hearing: 26 February 2015
________________________________________________________________________
MEDIA SUMMARY
________________________________________________________________________
The following explanatory note is provided to assist the media in reporting this case and is not binding on the Constitutional Court or any member of the Court.
On 26 February 2015 at 10h00, the Constitutional Court will hear an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal regarding the right not to be refused emergency medical treatment.
On 23 March 2002, the applicant, Mr Charles Oppelt, suffered a low velocity spinal cord injury during a rugby match which left him severely paralysed. A rapid closed reduction procedure was performed on Mr Oppelt about 13 hours after the injury occurred.
Mr Oppelt instituted a claim for damages in the Western Cape High Court against the Head: Department of Health, Western Cape (the department) and three organisations responsible for the administration of the game of rugby. The claim against the department was based on the medical treatment Mr Oppelt received from three hospitals under its control.
The High Court dismissed the claims instituted against the rugby organisations. It found however that the department’s employees had failed to timeously treat the spinal injuries sustained by Mr Oppelt. Evidence of an expert witness for Mr Oppelt indicated that had the rapid closed reduction procedure been performed within four hours of the injury, Mr Oppelt would probably not have become a person with quadriplegia. This was controverted by the expert witness for the department. The High Court found that the department’s employees were negligent in failing to timeously refer Mr Oppelt to a hospital specialised in spinal injuries to enable him to be treated there for his injury within four hours. The Court further found that the unreasonable delays justified the conclusion that the department refused emergency medical treatment to Mr Oppelt as provided for in section 27(3) of the Constitution. The Court concluded that the department was liable for Mr Oppelt’s proven damages.
The department appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal. That Court found that Mr Oppelt had failed to prove the validity of his expert’s methods on a balance of probabilities and thus failed to prove that he probably would have recovered if the expert’s methods had been applied. It therefore upheld the appeal.
In this Court, Mr Oppelt submits that the Supreme Court of Appeal’s approach to the evaluation of expert medical evidence was wrong and that it denied him a fair hearing. He further submits that his constitutional right not to be refused emergency medical treatment was violated. The department opposes the application. It submits that the approach of the Supreme Court of Appeal to medical evidence was sound and it supports that Court’s finding that Mr Oppelt had not proven causation between the treatment provided and the condition of Mr Oppelt. The department further submits that the constitutional rights relied upon by Mr Oppelt find no application in this matter.
