Emergency Care Training Association v Health Professions Council of South Africa and Others (664/10) [2011] ZASCA 126 (9 September 2011)
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the undertakings provided by the respondents in their answering affidavit rendered the relief sought by the appellant unnecessary. Consequently, any decision on the issues raised in the appeal would have no practical effect or result. The court exercised its discretion under...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] ZASCA 126
- Parties
- Appellant: Emergency Care Training Association; Respondent: Health Professions Council of South Africa; Respondent: Professional Board for Emergency Care Practitioners; Respondent: Chairperson: Professional Board for Emergency Care Practitioners
- Court
- Supreme Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 664/10
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
- Judges
- Cloete, Snyders, Shongwe, Seriti, Wallis
- Legal Topics
- Practical Effect of Relief, Costs Award, Section 21a Supreme Court Act
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Emergency Care Training Association
Appellant
Health Professions Council of South Africa
Respondent
Professional Board for Emergency Care Practitioners
Respondent
Chairperson: Professional Board for Emergency Care Practitioners
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be entertained when the relief sought has become unnecessary due to undertakings by respondents.
- 2 Whether a decision on the issues raised would have any practical effect or result.
- 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion under section 21A of the Supreme Court Act to dismiss the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the undertakings provided by the respondents in their answering affidavit rendered the relief sought by the appellant unnecessary. Consequently, any decision on the issues raised in the appeal would have no practical effect or result. The court exercised its discretion under section 21A of the Supreme Court Act to dismiss the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the respondents' costs, including the costs of two counsel.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The appellant is ordered to pay the respondents' costs, including the costs of two counsel.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
39 paragraphs
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT
Case No: 664/10
In the matter between:
EMERGENCY CARE TRAINING ASSOCIATION …....................................Appellant
and
HEALTH PROFESSIONS COUNCIL OF
SOUTH AFRICA …...........................................................................First Respondent
PROFESSIONAL BOARD FOR EMERGENCY CARE
PRACTITIONERS …...................................................................Second Respondent
CHAIRPERSON: PROFESSIONAL BOARD FOR
EMERGENCY CARE PRACTITIONERS …....................................Third Respondent
Neutral citation: Emergency Care Training Association v Health Professions
Council of South Africa (664/10) [2011] ZASCA 126 (9 September 2011).
Coram: CLOETE, SNYDERS, SHONGWE, SERITI and WALLIS JJA
Heard: 9 SEPTEMBER 2011
Delivered: 9 SEPTEMBER 2011
Summary:
_____________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________
On appeal from: North Gauteng High Court (Pretoria) (Kollapen J sitting as
court of first instance):
The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is ordered to pay the respondents' costs including the costs of two counsel.
CLOETE JA (SNYDERS, SHONGWE, SERITI and WALLIS JJA concurring):
[1] No decision was required by the court a quo as the undertakings given by some of the respondents in the answering affidavit rendered the relief sought unnecessary.
[2] A decision on the issues sought to be raised on appeal would have no practical effect or result.
[3] I would therefore exercise the discretion this court has in terms of s 21A of the Supreme Court Act, 59 of 1959, in favour of dismissing the appeal.
[4] The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is ordered to pay the respondents' costs including the costs of two counsel.
_______________
T D CLOETE
JUDGE OF APPEAL
APPEARANCES:
APPELLANTS: D S Fourie SC
Instructed by Hurter Spies Inc, Pretoria
Rossouw Attorneys, Bloemfontein
RESPONDENTS: M Chaskalson SC (with him Ms N J Jele)
Instructed by Gildenhuys Lessing Malatji Inc, Pretoria
Honey Attorneys, Bloemfontein