Mucavele and Another v MEC for Health, Mpumalanga Province

The first appellant, Thobile Mucavele, acting on behalf of her minor child Mpho Mucavele, instituted a medical negligence claim against the MEC for Health, Mpumalanga Province, arising from the child’s spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy allegedly caused by negligent care during birth at a provincial hospital in 2011. Her attorneys, VZLR Incorporated, represented her. Liability was settled on a 50:50 basis in 2020, and in November 2021 the parties agreed on a quantum settlement of R7 184 950 to be paid into a trust for the benefit of the minor. The parties sought to have the settlement made an order of court. The High Court, however, refused to make the consent order, questioned the fee arrangement between the plaintiff and her attorneys, found it to be an unlawful contingency fee agreement, altered the settlement terms, and made orders against VZLR Incorporated, which was not a party to the proceedings. The High Court further directed that the settlement funds be paid to attorneys nominated by the Legal Practice Council and referred the attorneys to the LPC. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld. The High Court’s order was set aside and replaced with an order making the parties’ settlement agreement an order of court, including payment of R7 184 950 plus interest, payment of agreed or taxed costs and expert costs, and the establishment of a trust for the benefit of the minor child.

The case reaffirms the limits of judicial intervention in settled, unopposed matters and underscores that courts may not rewrite settlement agreements or grant relief not sought by the parties. It clarifies that disputes about contingency fee agreements are separate from the enforceability of settlement agreements and that courts must respect party autonomy and procedural fairness, particularly where non-parties are concerned.