Minister of Health and Another v Maliszewski and Others (624/98) [2000] ZASCA 29; 2000 (3) SA 1062 (SCA); [2000] 3 All SA 160 (A) (30 May 2000)

Minister of Health and Another v Maliszewski and Others (624/98) [2000] ZASCA 29; 2000 (3) SA 1062 (SCA); [2000] 3 All SA 160 (A) (30 May 2000)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents were not entitled to full registration as medical practitioners without passing the prescribed examination for full registration (EFR). The special dispensation granted in 1991 was a once-off concession with a clear cut-off date, intended to address unique circumstances at the time and not to establish a general entitlement or practice. The respondents, who acquired South African citizenship after the cut-off date, could not rely on an extension of the special dispensation, nor did it create a reasonable or legitimate expectation for them. The statutory requirements for registration applied to the respondents, and they had not met the...

Citation
[2000] ZASCA 29
Parties
Appellant: Minister of Health; Appellant: National Interim Medical and Dental Council of South Africa; Respondent: A M Maliszewski; Respondent: Sarolta Keresztes; Respondent: Jan Hendrik Josef Szczygielski; Respondent: Martin Tupy; Respondent: Daniela Tupy; Respondent: Jovan Milovic; Respondent: Ilia Todorov Evrev; Respondent: Ryszard Gorbaszewicz; Respondent: Malgorzata Radzikowska-Wasiak; Respondent: Leonid Goldberg; Respondent: T Mariusz Tomasz Paszkiewicz
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 May 2000
Case Number
624/98
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division of the High Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld; respondents' action dismissed with costs.
Judges
Smalberger, Olivier, Scott, Plewman, Melunsky
Legal Topics
Registration of Foreign Medical Practitioners, Special Dispensation, Administrative Discretion, Equality Principle, Costs Orders
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Registration of Foreign Medical Practitioners Special Dispensation Administrative Discretion Equality Principle Costs Orders

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister of Health

Appellant

National Interim Medical and Dental Council of South Africa

Appellant

A M Maliszewski

Respondent

Sarolta Keresztes

Respondent

Jan Hendrik Josef Szczygielski

Respondent

Martin Tupy

Respondent

Daniela Tupy

Respondent

Jovan Milovic

Respondent

Ilia Todorov Evrev

Respondent

Ryszard Gorbaszewicz

Respondent

Malgorzata Radzikowska-Wasiak

Respondent

Leonid Goldberg

Respondent

T Mariusz Tomasz Paszkiewicz

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division of the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are entitled to full registration as medical practitioners without passing the examination for full registration (EFR).
  2. 2 Whether the special dispensation granted in 1991 should be extended to the respondents.
  3. 3 Whether the Council's refusal to grant full registration constitutes unfair discrimination or unreasonable exercise of administrative discretion.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents were not entitled to full registration as medical practitioners without passing the prescribed examination for full registration (EFR). The special dispensation granted in 1991 was a once-off concession with a clear cut-off date, intended to address unique circumstances at the time and not to establish a general entitlement or practice. The respondents, who acquired South African citizenship after the cut-off date, could not rely on an extension of the special dispensation, nor did it create a reasonable or legitimate expectation for them. The statutory requirements for registration applied to the respondents, and they had not met the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; respondents' action dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs, including the costs of two counsel, but excluding costs relating to the procural, preparation, perusal, and presentation of two thirds of the appeal record.
  • The appellants' attorneys shall not recover from their own clients any costs relating to the procural, preparation, perusal, and presentation of two thirds of the appeal record.