Mokoditoa and Others v Council for Medical Schemes and Others (23910/2022) [2025] ZAEQC 3 (10 February 2025)

Mokoditoa and Others v Council for Medical Schemes and Others (23910/2022) [2025] ZAEQC 3 (10 February 2025)

The court found that the complainants' unilateral removal and amendment of the initial Form 2 and founding affidavit from the electronic case profile, without leave of court, was procedurally impermissible. The original complaint documents must form the basis of the proceedings unless and until leave to amend is granted. Service of Form 3 on respondents is a peremptory requirement under PEPUDA and its Regulations, and the absence of proper service initially rendered the proceedings irregular. The subsequent directives issued by the court regularised the process by ensuring service and affording respondents the opportunity to file answering or supplementary affidavits. The absence of a...

Citation
[2025] ZAEQC 3
Parties
Applicant: Alfred Mokoditoa; Applicant: Alimag Pharmacies (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Ntebeng Mokoditoa; Applicant: Humprey Mokoditoa; Applicant: Phetolo Pharmacy (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Hasani Mmola; Applicant: Mphalane Pharmacy (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Donald Masubelele; Applicant: Mokhondo Pharmacy (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Council for Medical Schemes; Respondent: Discovery Health Medical Scheme; Respondent: Bonitas Medical Scheme; Respondent: Medscheme Administrator; Respondent: Hosmed Medical Scheme; Respondent: The South African Police Services Medical Scheme (POLMED); Respondent: Medical Schemes (GEMS); Respondent: Dr. Bojoshi O.S. Moloabi; Respondent: The Minister of Health; Respondent: The Minister of Public Services and Administration; Respondent: Ms Anita du Toit; Respondent: Gildenhuys Malatji Inc
Court
Equality Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 February 2025
Case Number
23910/2022
Procedural Posture
Directions Hearing / Ruling on Procedural Regularity and Directions
Outcome
Procedural irregularities were identified and remedial directions issued to regularise the proceedings. Costs reserved.
Judges
C Collis
Legal Topics
Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, Procedural Regularisation, Service of Process, Amendment of Pleadings, Access to Court
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act Procedural Regularisation Service of Process Amendment of Pleadings Access to Court

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alfred Mokoditoa

Applicant

Alimag Pharmacies (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Ntebeng Mokoditoa

Applicant

Humprey Mokoditoa

Applicant

Phetolo Pharmacy (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Hasani Mmola

Applicant

Mphalane Pharmacy (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Donald Masubelele

Applicant

Mokhondo Pharmacy (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Council for Medical Schemes

Respondent

Discovery Health Medical Scheme

Respondent

Bonitas Medical Scheme

Respondent

Medscheme Administrator

Respondent

Hosmed Medical Scheme

Respondent

The South African Police Services Medical Scheme (POLMED)

Respondent

Medical Schemes (GEMS)

Respondent

Dr. Bojoshi O.S. Moloabi

Respondent

The Minister of Health

Respondent

The Minister of Public Services and Administration

Respondent

Ms Anita du Toit

Respondent

Gildenhuys Malatji Inc

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Directions Hearing / Ruling on Procedural Regularity and Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complainants' removal and amendment of initial complaint documents without leave of court was procedurally permissible.
  2. 2 Whether service of Form 3 on respondents was properly effected as required by PEPUDA and its Regulations.
  3. 3 Whether respondents are prejudiced by the complainants' procedural actions and what remedial directions are appropriate.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the complainants' unilateral removal and amendment of the initial Form 2 and founding affidavit from the electronic case profile, without leave of court, was procedurally impermissible. The original complaint documents must form the basis of the proceedings unless and until leave to amend is granted. Service of Form 3 on respondents is a peremptory requirement under PEPUDA and its Regulations, and the absence of proper service initially rendered the proceedings irregular. The subsequent directives issued by the court regularised the process by ensuring service and affording respondents the opportunity to file answering or supplementary affidavits. The absence of a...

Court Disposition

Procedural irregularities were identified and remedial directions issued to regularise the proceedings. Costs reserved.

Orders

  • The complainants are directed to upload the original Form 2 dated 23 April 2022 onto Caselines on or before 24 February 2025.
  • The complainants are directed to upload the original founding affidavit onto Caselines on or before 24 February 2025.