MEC for Health, Eastern Cape Provincial Government v Khumbulela Melane and Special Investigating Unit v MEC for Health, Eastern Cape Provincial Government and Another

The respondent, Ms Khumbulela Melane, instituted a medical negligence action in 2015 against the MEC for Health, Eastern Cape, in her personal and representative capacity on behalf of her minor child L, alleging negligent obstetric and neonatal care at public hospitals resulting in severe cerebral palsy. The MEC failed to comply with discovery obligations, leading to an order compelling discovery (28 August 2017), followed by an order striking out the MEC’s defence (12 September 2017). Default judgments on liability (22 May 2018) and quantum (11 February 2019) were subsequently granted, awarding substantial damages. In 2019, the MEC applied for rescission of the orders under rule 42(1)(a), alleging procedural irregularities. In 2020, the Special Investigating Unit (SIU), following investigations into maladministration by state officials and attorneys, launched a separate application seeking rescission of all orders and leave to intervene as a defendant.

All orders granted in favour of Ms Melane on 28 August 2017, 12 September 2017, 22 May 2018 and 11 February 2019 were rescinded and set aside; the MEC’s plea was reinstated; costs of the MEC rescission application were ordered to be costs in the cause; the SIU application for rescission and intervention was dismissed with costs; the parties were directed to attend a judicial case management conference for the continuation of the main action.

The judgment reaffirms the strict procedural requirements governing discovery, striking out of defences, and default judgments, especially in high-value medical negligence claims against the state. It underscores the operation of rule 42(1)(a) as a mechanism to correct procedurally irregular orders without requiring proof of good cause. The case also clarifies that subsequent orders dependent on an irregular foundational order cannot stand independently. Additionally, it highlights limits on the SIU’s role in civil litigation and cautions against maladministration and laxity in state litigation.