Tshabalala-Msimang and Another v Makhanya and Others (18656/07) [2007] ZAGPHC 161; 2008 (6) SA 102 (W); 2008 (3) BCLR 338 (W); [2008] 1 All SA 509 (W) (30 August 2007)

Tshabalala-Msimang and Another v Makhanya and Others (18656/07) [2007] ZAGPHC 161; 2008 (6) SA 102 (W); 2008 (3) BCLR 338 (W); [2008] 1 All SA 509 (W) (30 August 2007)

The court found that the respondents' possession and publication of the first applicant's confidential medical records was unlawful under the National Health Act and infringed her constitutional right to privacy. However, given the first applicant's status as a public figure and the compelling public interest in the information, the court held that the public's right to know outweighed the applicant's privacy interests in this instance. The court refused to grant a blanket interdict against further comment or publication, as much of the information was already in the public domain and contributed to legitimate public debate. The court ordered the return of all medical records to the...

Citation
[2007] ZAGPHC 161
Parties
Applicant: Mantombazana Edmie Tshabalala-Msimang; Applicant: Medi Clinic Ltd; Respondent: Mondli Makhanya; Respondent: Jocelyn Maker; Respondent: Megan Power; Respondent: Johnnic Publications
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 August 2007
Case Number
18656/07
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Urgent Application and Interim Interdict
Outcome
Application partly granted and partly refused. The respondents are ordered to return all medical records to the second applicant and delete all copies from their computers. The interdict against further comment or publication is discharged. Costs awarded against respondents jointly and severally.
Judges
Jajbhay
Legal Topics
Right to Privacy, Freedom of Expression, Confidential Medical Records, Public Interest Exception, Interdict, Costs Orders
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Family and Children Right to Privacy Freedom of Expression Confidential Medical Records Public Interest Exception Interdict +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mantombazana Edmie Tshabalala-Msimang

Applicant

Medi Clinic Ltd

Applicant

Mondli Makhanya

Respondent

Jocelyn Maker

Respondent

Megan Power

Respondent

Johnnic Publications

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Urgent Application and Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents' possession and publication of the first applicant's confidential medical records was unlawful under the National Health Act and Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to an interdict restraining further publication or comment on the medical records.
  3. 3 Whether the public interest justifies the publication of unlawfully obtained confidential information about a public figure.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents' possession and publication of the first applicant's confidential medical records was unlawful under the National Health Act and infringed her constitutional right to privacy. However, given the first applicant's status as a public figure and the compelling public interest in the information, the court held that the public's right to know outweighed the applicant's privacy interests in this instance. The court refused to grant a blanket interdict against further comment or publication, as much of the information was already in the public domain and contributed to legitimate public debate. The court ordered the return of all medical records to the...

Court Disposition

Application partly granted and partly refused. The respondents are ordered to return all medical records to the second applicant and delete all copies from their computers. The interdict against further comment or publication is discharged. Costs awarded against respondents jointly and severally.

Orders

  • The documents relating to the health records of the first applicant placed in a safe deposit box at the Sandton Branch of Standard Bank must be returned to the second applicant forthwith.
  • The respondents are ordered to delete all copies of these medical records stored on their personal computers or laptops.