Mucavele and Another v MEC for Health, Mpumalanga Province (889/2022) [2023] ZASCA 129 (11 October 2023)

Introduction
The Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa has reinforced the principle that settlement agreements between parties should be respected and not altered by the courts without a clear legal basis. This case highlights the court's role in ensuring justice and fairness while preventing judicial overreach.

Background of the Case
Thobile Mucavele, on behalf of her minor child, Mpho Mucavele, filed a lawsuit against the MEC for Health, Mpumalanga Province, due to the child's severe medical condition, spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy, which was linked to complications at birth. After a protracted legal battle, the parties reached a settlement agreement, which was later contested by the high court due to concerns over the legal fee arrangement.

The High Court's Concerns
The high court suspected an illegal contingency fee agreement between Mucavele and her attorneys, VZLR Incorporated. This led to the high court altering the terms of the settlement and making orders against VZLR Incorporated, despite it not being a party to the proceedings at that time.

The Supreme Court of Appeal
The Supreme Court of Appeal scrutinized the high court's concerns and found that the court had overstepped its boundaries by altering the settlement agreement and making orders against a non-party.

Core Legal Principles (Ratio Decidendi)
The court emphasized the importance of upholding settlement agreements and clarified that an invalid contingency fee agreement does not necessarily invalidate the settlement itself. The court also highlighted that it had no jurisdiction to make orders against non-parties.

Judicial and Legislative Authorities Referenced
The court referred to several key authorities, including the Road Accident Fund v Taylor, Fischer and Another v Ramahlele and Others, and Road Accident Fund v MKM obo KM and Another; Road Accident Fund v NM obo CM and Another, to support its decision.

The Court's Conclusion
The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the appeal, set aside the high court's orders, and enforced the original settlement agreement, ensuring that the agreed compensation would be paid to the minor child through a trust.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court of Appeal's decision in Mucavele and Another v MEC for Health, Mpumalanga Province serves as a reminder of the power and limitations of the judiciary in altering settlement agreements and the importance of adhering to established legal principles in South African law.