Authored by Nomonde Sithole and Dezhané Diamond.
In March 2026, the high court dismissed a claim for emotional shock because the claimant failed to lead expert psychiatric or psychological evidence to prove a detectable psychiatric injury. The case is a reminder that a claimant's own account of emotional suffering, no matter how compelling, will not on its own sustain a damages claim for shock and trauma.
The claimant's husband was admitted to a provincial hospital on multiple occasions during 2021 and developed severe bedsores and septicaemia. He passed away on 8 May 2021. The claimant sued the provincial health department for damages arising from emotional shock and pain, alleging that the hospital's negligent treatment of her husband caused his death and her resulting trauma.
During the trial on liability, the claimant testified that she had experienced depression, insomnia, anxiety and nightmares following her husband's hospitalisation and death. She described distressing conditions she witnessed, including soiled bedding, foul-smelling wounds and a marked deterioration in her husband's condition. Her evidence was not challenged by the provincial health department and stood uncontroverted.
However, the claimant chose not to call her medical experts and did not present any psychiatric or psychological evidence to support her claim. The court held that this was fatal to her case. Relying on established authority, including Road Accident Fund v Sauls, Komape v Minister of Basic Education and MM obo GM v MEC for Health, North West, the court confirmed that a claimant must prove a detectable psychiatric injury, and that this requires supporting expert evidence from a psychiatrist or psychologist. A claimant's own testimony, however emotional, does not have sufficient evidential value to ground a damages award for psychiatric shock.
The court noted that, had the claimant led suitable expert evidence, her testimony would have provided a factual basis upon which such an expert could have based an opinion. Without it, the court was constrained to find that the claimant had not proven her harm, and the claim was dismissed with costs.
The decision underscores a practical point for anyone considering a claim for emotional shock arising from medical negligence or other wrongful conduct: securing a proper psychiatric or psychological assessment and presenting that expert evidence at trial is not optional — it is essential.