South Africa Case Law

KeyHealth Medical Scheme v Ngoepe N.O and Others (A203/2021)

KeyHealth Medical Scheme v Ngoepe N.O and Others (A203/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 758 (10 October 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A203/2021

Judges

L Barit, DS Fourie, C Sardiwalla

The court held that KeyHealth Medical Scheme is prohibited by Regulation 10(6) of the Medical Schemes Act from using a member's Medical Savings Account to fund prescribed minimum benefits. Regulation 8 further obliges the scheme to pay PMBs in full from its risk pool, without co-payment or deductibles. KeyHealth's own Rule 17.5 reinforces this prohibition by stating that no limitations or exclusions apply to PMBs. The court found that KeyHealth's argument, based on the absence of an express prohibition, was flawed; the correct approach is to determine whether there is authorisation for such c…

Source excerpt

• Medical Schemes Act
• Prescribed Minimum Benefits
• Administrative Review
• Regulation Interpretation
• Risk Pool Funding
• Paja Review

Thendele and Another Legal Practice Council and Others (10641/2020)

Thendele and Another Legal Practice Council and Others (10641/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 170 (28 March 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

10641/2020

Judge

E van der Schyff

The High Court held that BProc graduates were not barred from registering practical vocational training contracts and read Regulation 6 to include them.

• Legal Practitioners Admission
• Transitional Arrangements
• Constitutional Invalidity
• Practical Vocational Training
• Regulation Interpretation
• Legal-practitioners-admission

Outdoor Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister of Police and Another (14784/2021)

Outdoor Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister of Police and Another (14784/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 111; 2022 (2) SACR 578 (GP) (24 February 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

14784/2021

Judge

Noncembu

The High Court dismissed a declaratory application on firearm storage, holding Regulation 67 must be read with the Firearms Control Act and does not allow dealer storage at another dealer’s premises.

• Firearms Control Act
• Regulation Interpretation
• Dealer Licence Conditions
• Safe Custody Of Firearms
• Firearms-control-act
• Statutory-interpretation

Clicks Group Ltd and Others v Independent Community Pharmacy Association and Others (644/2020)

Clicks Group Ltd and Others v Independent Community Pharmacy Association and Others (644/2020) [2021] ZASCA 167; [2022] 1 All SA 297 (SCA) (3 December 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

644/2020

Judges

Petse, Mathopo, Makgoka, Plasket, Kgoele

The majority held that the Clicks Group's corporate structure does not contravene regulation 6(d) of the Regulations relating to Ownership and Licensing of Pharmacies. The court found that the concept of 'beneficial interest' does not extend to shareholders in the context of South African law, as company assets are distinct from shareholder interests. The Director-General and Appeal Committee acted lawfully in dismissing the complaint, as the jurisdictional requirements for revocation of licences were not met and no evidence was adduced of actual conflict of interest or harm to patients. The…

Source excerpt

• Pharmacy Licensing
• Beneficial Interest
• Corporate Structure
• Regulation Interpretation
• Right To Health
• Conflict Of Interest

Member of the Executive Council Local Government Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Western Cape v Prince Albert Municipality and Another (A231/2020)

Member of the Executive Council Local Government Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Western Cape v Prince Albert Municipality and Another (A231/2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 278 (21 September 2021)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A231/2020

Judges

Goliath, Fortuin, Slingers

Appeal over municipal senior-manager appointment regulations. The majority held Regulation 12(4) remained valid and that the selection panel was improperly constituted.

• Municipal Systems Act
• Appointment Of Senior Managers
• Regulation Interpretation
• Constitutional Invalidity
• Non Joinder
• Selection Panel Composition

Mgengo v Lekwa-Teemane Local Municipality and Others (J452/20)

Mgengo v Lekwa-Teemane Local Municipality and Others (J452/20) [2020] ZALCJHB 255 (11 June 2020)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J452/20

Judge

P Nkutha-Nkontwana

The Court found that Regulation 6(6)(a) requires the actual commencement of the disciplinary hearing within three months of suspension, which means the formal sitting with the presiding officer, not merely the service of a charge sheet or notice. Since the disciplinary hearing for the applicant did not commence within the prescribed period, his suspension automatically lapsed on 19 May 2020. The respondents were therefore obliged to reinstate him as Municipal Manager. The Court further held that it lacks jurisdiction to enforce compliance with COVID-19 Regulations and OHSA, as such enforcemen…

Source excerpt

• Precautionary Suspension
• Disciplinary Hearing
• Regulation Interpretation
• Covid 19 Regulations
• Jurisdiction
• Urgent Relief

Mphala v Road Accident Fund (698/16)

Mphala v Road Accident Fund (698/16) [2017] ZASCA 76 (1 June 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

698/16

Judges

Lewis, Ponnan, Petse, Mathopo, Coppin

Regulation 3(3)(dA) of the Road Accident Fund Regulations does not create a deeming provision whereby the Fund is deemed to have accepted a Serious Injury Assessment report if it fails to respond within 90 days. The regulation merely prescribes a time period for the Fund to make a decision. The claimant’s remedy for the Fund’s failure to act within the prescribed period is to seek judicial review under s 6(2)(g) of PAJA, not automatic entitlement to general damages. Reading in a deeming provision would alter the clear meaning of the regulation and is not justified absent a constitutional chal…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Serious Injury Assessment
• Administrative Action
• Judicial Review
• Regulation Interpretation

Board of Health Care Funders of the Southern Africa (Association Incorporated Under Section 21 of the Companies Act, 61 of 1973) and Another v Council for Medical Schemes and Others (70018/10)

Board of Health Care Funders of the Southern Africa (Association Incorporated Under Section 21 of the Companies Act, 61 of 1973) and Another v Council for Medical Schemes and Others (70018/10) [2011] ZAGPPHC 206 (7 November 2011)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

70018/10

Judge

Pretorius

The court found that the first applicant did not have locus standi to seek declaratory relief regarding the interpretation of regulation 8(1) of the General Regulations under the Medical Schemes Act. The first applicant failed to demonstrate a direct and substantial legal interest in the subject matter, as the judgment would not prejudicially affect it but rather the medical schemes themselves. Only a limited number of medical schemes supported the application, and not all affected schemes were joined as parties. The court held that a declaratory order cannot be granted where it would affect…

Source excerpt

• Medical Schemes Act
• Prescribed Minimum Benefits
• Locus Standi
• Declaratory Relief
• Regulation Interpretation