South Africa Case Law

IPA Foundation (NPC) v South African Pharmacy Council (Leave to Appeal) (7452/2022)

IPA Foundation (NPC) v South African Pharmacy Council (Leave to Appeal) (7452/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1154 (18 September 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

7452/2022

Judge

E van der Schyff

The High Court granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal in a review matter concerning the Pharmacy Council’s authority and public-health access issues.

• Pharmacist Initiated Treatment
• Statutory Interpretation
• Scope Of Administrative Power
• Broadening Access To Art
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Administrative-law

IPA Foundation (NPC) v South African Pharmacy Council and Others (7452/2022)

IPA Foundation (NPC) v South African Pharmacy Council and Others (7452/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 666 (14 August 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

7452/2022

Judge

E van der Schyff

The High Court dismissed a review of the SAPC's decision to implement PIMART, finding adequate notice, lawful authority, and no procedural unfairness.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Scope Of Practice
• Procedural Fairness
• Ultra Vires
• Public Health Policy
• Administrative-law

ACPSA (The Association of Compounding Pharmacists of South Africa) v Minister of Health and Others (15758/2018)

ACPSA (The Association of Compounding Pharmacists of South Africa) v Minister of Health and Others (15758/2018) [2021] ZAGPPHC 895 (13 December 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

15758/2018

Judge

Manoim

The High Court reviewed and set aside parts of the 2017 compounding regulations for irrationality, with suspension and referral back for amendment.

• Regulation Making
• Rationality Review
• Ultra Vires
• Anticipatory Compounding
• Code Of Good Practice
• Administrative-law

Treatment Action Campaign and Another v Rath and Others (12156/05)

Treatment Action Campaign and Another v Rath and Others (12156/05) [2008] ZAWCHC 34; [2008] 4 All SA 360 (C) (13 June 2008)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

12156/05

Judge

Zondi

The court found that VitaCell, distributed by the Rath respondents, qualifies as a 'medicine' under the Medicines Act due to the medicinal claims made about its efficacy in treating AIDS. The supply of VitaCell to SANCO constitutes a sale under the Act, even if no consideration is received. However, VitaCell is not subject to mandatory registration as a medicine under the 2002 call-up notice, which only initiates a process for potential registration. The Rath respondents conducted clinical trials without authorisation, which is unlawful under the Medicines Act and its regulations. The adverti…

Source excerpt

• Medicines And Related Substances Act
• Clinical Trials Regulation
• False Advertising
• Ministerial Duties
• Judicial Review
• Public Health Policy