issue. This necessitated an adjournment of the matter to afford the defendant an
opportunity to respond. The bone of contention is the surreptitious surveillance of the
plaintiff and his family by Mr. Dion Pienaar, a forensic private investigator, at the
instance of the defendant.
[2]
In essence, the plaintiff submitted that the evidence of Mr. Dion Pienaar is
irrelevant, immaterial and cannot prove or disprove the extent of the plaintiff's
damages1. If anything, the argument goes, it violates his constitutional right to
privacy, s 14 of the Constitution. Hence, this objection which seeks to exclude his
report and evidence.
The parties
[3]
The plaintiff is Nicholas Jacobus De Jager, an adult male businessman, born
on 28 February 1958.
[4]
The defendant is Netcare Limited, a company that provides medical services
and is duly incorporated and registered under the company laws of South African.
Facts in brief
[5]
On the 18th of February 2014, the plaintiff underwent a successful right eye
phacoemulsification cataract extraction. On the 18th of March 2014, the plaintiff
underwent an unsuccessful left eye phacoemulsification cataract extraction by Dr
Eugene Pretorius at the defendant's Pretoria East Hospital2. The plaintiff contracted
Toxic Anterior Segment Syndrome (TASS), which resulted in blindness in his left eye.
[6]
Using Rule 33(4), the parties separated the liability and quantum. On 20
February 2018, the question of merits was settled at 100% in favour of the plaintiff.
Subsequently, the defendant made two interim payments to the tune of R4.5 million
to the plaintiff for damages claimed.
1
2
Heads of argument of the plaintiff para 4 page 2
Particulars of claim page 5 para 3