Edna Nyasalu v Attorney-General (1983) Z.R. 105 H.C. revolves
on December 27, 1974, the plaintiff suffered acute tonsillitis and sought medical attention at the
UTH outpatient department. Dr. Mathews, acting as an agent of the state, prescribed and
administered 3cc of procaine penicillin to her. Shortly after the injection, the plaintiff collapsed
and was subsequently admitted to the hospital in a state of unconsciousness due to cardiac arrest.
Although she regained consciousness later that day, her health deteriorated, leading to ongoing
impairments. These include difficulty walking and speaking normally, as well as an inability to
perform her domestic duties and continue her employment as a clerical officer with the Ministry
of Rural Development. Despite being discharged in 1975, she has not fully recovered from the
effects of the incident.
The case of Edna Nyasalu v Attorney-General (1983) Z.R. 105 H.C. revolves around a claim for
damages due to alleged negligence by a medical doctor at the University Teaching Hospital
(UTH) in Zambia. Edna Nyasalu, represented by her next friend, sued for injuries sustained after
receiving a 3cc injection of Procaine Penicillin on December 27, 1974, while being treated for
acute tonsillitis. The plaintiff claimed that the doctor, Dr. Mathews, failed to inquire about
potential allergies to penicillin and did not administer a test dose, which she argued were
standard procedures to prevent adverse reactions.
The plaintiff's husband testified that shortly after receiving the injection, Edna collapsed and was
later found unconscious in the hospital. She subsequently suffered from brain damage and speech
loss, rendering her unable to work or perform daily tasks independently. The plaintiff's case
relied on establishing negligence on the part of the medical staff by not following standard
medical protocols, which they claimed led to her severe injuries.
In defense, the University Teaching Hospital's doctors testified that while there were standard
procedures for administering penicillin, including allergy inquiries and test doses, these were not
always feasible in busy outpatient settings. They argued that the decision to administer penicillin
by injection was based on clinical judgment and the severity of Edna's condition. They
maintained that the treatment given was in line with accepted medical practices at the time.
Ultimately, the court examined whether there was sufficient evidence to prove negligence on the
part of Dr. Mathews and the hospital staff. Despite sympathy for the plaintiff's condition, the
court emphasized the need for direct evidence to infer professional negligence. It concluded that
there was insufficient proof that the doctor had neglected his duty of care, as the records did not
definitively establish whether the standard procedures were followed or not. Therefore, the
plaintiff's claim for damages was dismissed due to lack of conclusive evidence of negligence.
The case underscores the high threshold required to prove medical negligence and the challenges
in holding medical professionals accountable without clear, direct evidence of deviation from
standard practices.