The Eastern Cape High Court recently heard argument in the matter of AQ obo IQ v MEC for Health, Eastern Cape, where the Department of Health attempted to argue that it could compensate the Plaintiff by providing healthcare services through its own facilities instead of paying monetary damages. The Court rejected this argument.

This case involved a child, who suffered cerebral palsy because of the negligence of the employees of the DoH at a government hospital. The court had already decided that the government was responsible for the harm. The only issue left was how much compensation should be paid for the child’s future medical care.

What the DoH Tried to Argue

Instead of paying money to the child’s family to cover future medical needs, the DoH tried to argue that:

1. The child could use government hospitals for free, or
2. The government would “promise to pay” medical costs in the future, as the expenses arise.

This “promise to pay later” approach is something the DoH has been trying to use more frequently to avoid large lump-sum payments.

Why the Court Rejected the Government’s Approach

The judge found several problems:

No proper plan

The government did not show a real, practical plan explaining how it would actually provide or fund the child’s future care, especially since the child now lives in a different province.

Uncertain and unreliable

There were too many unanswered questions:

• No agreement between provinces to ensure treatment in the Western Cape.
• No guarantee that payments to doctors would be made on time.
• No proven system showing it could work in real life.

Not fair to the child

The court said a child with severe disabilities should not be left hoping the system will work, the family must receive reliable compensation now, not uncertain promises for later.

What the Court Ordered

The court ordered the government to pay the child’s quantified future medical expenses and services in a lumpsum payment. 

What This Means for our Clients

• The government cannot avoid paying compensation by offering vague or untested “promises to pay later.”
• When the government cannot show a clear, workable plan, courts will award full monetary compensation.