Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
V-Tech (Pty) Ltd v South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (2024-008772) [2024] ZAGPPHC 799 (6 August 2024)
The court dismissed V-Tech’s urgent bid for an interim interdict against SAHPRA because it failed to prove irreparable harm on the papers.
Allergan Pharmaceuticals (Pty) Ltd v Medicines Control Council and Others (992/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 319; [2015] 3 All SA 173 (GP) (5 May 2015)
The court held that the Optive range was a medical device, not a medicine, and ordered the respondents to release detained products and pay costs.
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 admin…
Source excerpt
Treatment Action Campaign and Another v Rath and Others (12156/05) [2008] ZAWCHC 34; [2008] 4 All SA 360 (C) (13 June 2008)
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
Explore more
