Quick Drink Co (Pty) Ltd and Another v Medicines Control Council and Others (64056/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 904; 2015 (5) SA 358 (GP) (11 November 2014)

Quick Drink Co (Pty) Ltd and Another v Medicines Control Council and Others (64056/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 904; 2015 (5) SA 358 (GP) (11 November 2014)

The court found that the seizure of the applicants' consignment of e-cigarettes was an act of selective enforcement for which no rational basis existed. Despite the existence of other importers, manufacturers, and retailers of e-cigarettes, only the applicants were targeted, and the respondents failed to provide any objective explanation beyond vague references to capacity constraints. The court held that such selective enforcement, absent a rational connection to a legitimate governmental purpose, violated the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law and constituted unlawful administrative action under section 6(2)(i) of PAJA. The court further found that the balance of...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 904
Parties
Applicant: Quick Drink Co (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Megacor Investments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Medicines Control Council; Respondent: Registrar of Medicines; Respondent: Minister of Health; Respondent: Director-General of the Department of Health; Respondent: Gauteng Department of Health
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 November 2014
Case Number
64056/2014
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Part A: Interim Interdict and Review; Part B: Pending Review of Administrative Decisions
Outcome
Interim relief granted; seizure set aside; respondents interdicted from discriminatory enforcement; costs awarded to applicants.
Judges
N Kollapen
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Selective Enforcement, Interim Interdict, Equality Before the Law, Medicines and Related Substances Act
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Selective Enforcement Interim Interdict Equality Before the Law Medicines and Related Substances Act

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Quick Drink Co (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Megacor Investments (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Medicines Control Council

Respondent

Registrar of Medicines

Respondent

Minister of Health

Respondent

Director-General of the Department of Health

Respondent

Gauteng Department of Health

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Part A: Interim Interdict and Review; Part B: Pending Review of Administrative Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the seizure of the applicants' consignment of e-cigarettes constituted unlawful and unconstitutional selective enforcement of the Medicines and Related Substances Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to interim relief pending the review of administrative decisions regarding the scheduling of nicotine.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' actions violated the right to equality before the law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the seizure of the applicants' consignment of e-cigarettes was an act of selective enforcement for which no rational basis existed. Despite the existence of other importers, manufacturers, and retailers of e-cigarettes, only the applicants were targeted, and the respondents failed to provide any objective explanation beyond vague references to capacity constraints. The court held that such selective enforcement, absent a rational connection to a legitimate governmental purpose, violated the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law and constituted unlawful administrative action under section 6(2)(i) of PAJA. The court further found that the balance of...

Court Disposition

Interim relief granted; seizure set aside; respondents interdicted from discriminatory enforcement; costs awarded to applicants.

Orders

  • Condonation is granted for the applicants’ non-compliance with the Uniform Rules of Court and the matter is heard on an urgent basis.
  • Pending the final determination of the relief sought in Part B, the decision to seize or detain the applicants' consignment of Playboy electronic cigarettes and hookahs on 20 February 2014 is set aside.