Mapholisa N.O v Phetoe N.O and Others (85362/18) [2020] ZAGPPHC 641 (23 November 2020)

Mapholisa N.O v Phetoe N.O and Others (85362/18) [2020] ZAGPPHC 641 (23 November 2020)

The court held that the applicant failed to exhaust internal remedies as required by section 7(2) of PAJA, since Regulation 11 provides for an appeal against the findings of the Professional Conduct Committee. No exceptional circumstances were raised or application made to bypass this requirement. The ninth respondent, not being the patient and lacking factual knowledge, did not have locus standi to lodge the complaint. There was no admissible evidence before the Committee, as the patient was not called as a witness. The Committee's decision to uphold the point in limine and dismiss the complaint was correct. The application for review was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 641
Parties
Applicant: Meshack Mapholisa N.O.; Respondent: Adv K I A Phetoe N.O.; Respondent: Prof S M Dawjee N.O.; Respondent: Dr J Basson N.O.; Respondent: Dr M N Mabasa N.O.; Respondent: Ms Chokoe N.O.; Respondent: Ms D P Mthimunye — Hluyo N.O.; Respondent: Dr Miller; Respondent: Health Professions Council of South Africa; Respondent: Malinda Miller; Respondent: Violet Gaolebale Senna
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 November 2020
Case Number
85362/18
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of the Rule 30 application and wasted costs of the postponed hearing.
Judges
Fabricius
Legal Topics
Internal Remedies Exhaustion, Locus Standi, Health Professions Act, Review of Administrative Action
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Internal Remedies Exhaustion Locus Standi Health Professions Act Review of Administrative Action

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Meshack Mapholisa N.O.

Applicant

Adv K I A Phetoe N.O.

Respondent

Prof S M Dawjee N.O.

Respondent

Dr J Basson N.O.

Respondent

Dr M N Mabasa N.O.

Respondent

Ms Chokoe N.O.

Respondent

Ms D P Mthimunye — Hluyo N.O.

Respondent

Dr Miller

Respondent

Health Professions Council of South Africa

Respondent

Malinda Miller

Respondent

Violet Gaolebale Senna

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was required to exhaust internal remedies before approaching the court for review.
  2. 2 Whether the ninth respondent had locus standi to lodge the complaint with the Health Professions Council.
  3. 3 Whether the Professional Conduct Committee's decision was final and reviewable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant failed to exhaust internal remedies as required by section 7(2) of PAJA, since Regulation 11 provides for an appeal against the findings of the Professional Conduct Committee. No exceptional circumstances were raised or application made to bypass this requirement. The ninth respondent, not being the patient and lacking factual knowledge, did not have locus standi to lodge the complaint. There was no admissible evidence before the Committee, as the patient was not called as a witness. The Committee's decision to uphold the point in limine and dismiss the complaint was correct. The application for review was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of the Rule 30 application and wasted costs of the postponed hearing.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, including the costs of the applicant's Rule 30 application and the wasted costs pertaining to the postponed hearing on 6 October 2020.