Tecmed (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister of Health and Others (16980/11) [2012] ZAGPPHC 112 (15 June 2012)

Tecmed (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister of Health and Others (16980/11) [2012] ZAGPPHC 112 (15 June 2012)

The court found that the Defendants failed to establish that the Plaintiffs' particulars of claim do not disclose a cause of action. The provisions of PAJA do not exclude common law remedies, and the issues raised by the Defendants are matters for the trial court to determine. The exception was not used for its proper purpose and appeared to be a delaying tactic. It is just and equitable for the dispute to be ventilated at trial to determine the real issues between the parties.

Citation
[2012] ZAGPPHC 112
Parties
Plaintiff: Tecmed (Pty) Ltd; Plaintiff: Tecmed Africa (Pty) Limited; Defendant: Minister of Health; Defendant: Department of Health; Defendant: Director-General of National Health; Defendant: Mr Karel Euo Smit
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 June 2012
Case Number
16980/11
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception dismissed with costs.
Judges
Raulinga
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Cause of Action, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Common Law Remedies
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Exception Procedure Cause of Action Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Common Law Remedies

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tecmed (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Tecmed Africa (Pty) Limited

Plaintiff

Minister of Health

Defendant

Department of Health

Defendant

Director-General of National Health

Defendant

Mr Karel Euo Smit

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiffs' particulars of claim disclose a cause of action.
  2. 2 Whether the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) excludes common law remedies for alleged invalid administrative action.
  3. 3 Whether the exception raised by the Defendants should be upheld.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Defendants failed to establish that the Plaintiffs' particulars of claim do not disclose a cause of action. The provisions of PAJA do not exclude common law remedies, and the issues raised by the Defendants are matters for the trial court to determine. The exception was not used for its proper purpose and appeared to be a delaying tactic. It is just and equitable for the dispute to be ventilated at trial to determine the real issues between the parties.

Court Disposition

Exception dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The exception is dismissed with costs.