Mistry v Interim National Medical and Dental Council of South Africa

Last updated

Mistry v Interim National Medical and Dental Council of South Africa is an important case in the South African law of medicine, constitutional law, constitutional litigation and criminal procedure.

Contents

In the area of constitutional litigation, the court dealt with an application for a certificate in terms of Rule 18 of the Constitutional Court Rules. And it held that the considerations relevant to deciding whether the certificate should be positive or negative are similar to those which should influence the court in deciding whether or not to grant leave to appeal to Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA): The High Court is required in both instances to consider

It was appropriate, in other words, that an application for a certificate in terms of Rule 18 be dealt with in the same manner as a conventional application for leave to appeal. In both instances, judgment on the application is required.

The case is also important, in this area of the law, for its treatment of the power of the Constitutional Court to suspend a declaration of invalidity, in the interests of justice and good government, pending a correction of the invalid statute by the competent authority. As a general rule, the court held, it will not suspend an order of invalidity, with exceptions to be made only when the reasons are good and persuasive. The party requesting the suspension carries the burden of proof; it must provide the court with reliable information to justify a suspension, indicating at the very least

Facts

Section 28(1) of the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act gave inspectors of medicines the authority to enter into and inspect any premises, place, vehicle, vessel or aircraft where such inspectors reasonably believed there were medicines or other substances regulated by the Act, and to seize any medicine or books, records or documents found in or upon such premises, place, vehicle, vessel or aircraft which appeared to afford evidence of a contravention of any provision of the Act. [1] In short, this provision gave inspectors sweeping powers to search and seize without a warrant.

Judgment

Chaskalson

Application for leave to appeal

As to the application for leave to appeal, Chaskalson P held, and the other members of the court concurred, that the considerations relevant to deciding whether a certificate in terms of Rule 18 of the Constitutional Court Rules should be positive or negative were "in many respects similar" to those which should influence a court in deciding whether or not to grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal. [2] In both instances, the High Court was required to consider

  • whether or not there were "reasonable prospects of success;" and
  • whether the issues raised were "of sufficient substance" to be dealt with by the SCA. [3]

"It is appropriate, therefore," Chaskalson concluded,

that an application for a certificate in terms of Rule 18 should be dealt with in the same manner as a conventional application for leave to appeal. In both instances a judgment on the application is required. [4]

Having observed that "the purpose of the certificate is to assist this Court in the decision that it has to make as to whether or not leave to appeal should be granted," Chaskalson held that, where the relevant constitutional issues had been fully traversed in the judgment in respect of which the certificate had been given, there might be no need for a detailed judgment on the certificate. [5]

Where, however, "the application for a certificate raises issues which have not been fully canvassed in the judgment, or where the reasoning in the judgment is subjected to challenge which calls for comment, the judgment on the certificate may have to be more comprehensive." Ultimately, what was necessary was that the High Court to which the application had been made should consider the issues identified in Rule 18(e) and give reasons for the findings made. Chaskalson applauded McLaren J for having done as much in the present matter. [6]

Sachs

Sachs J held for a unanimous court that the existence of safeguards to regulate the way in which State officials may enter the private domains of ordinary citizens is one of the features that distinguish a constitutional democracy from a police state. Although, he wrote, there had been an admirable history of strong statutory controls over the powers of the police to search and seize, yet when it came to racially discriminatory laws and security legislation, vast and often unrestricted discretionary powers were conferred on officials and police.

Furthermore, he observed, generations of systematised and egregious violations of personal privacy had established norms of disrespect for citizens that had seeped generally into the public administration, and had promoted among a great many officials habits and practices inconsistent with the standards of conduct now required by the Bill of Rights.

The provision in the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act was found, accordingly, to be invalid.

Suspension of declaration of invalidity

Sachs turned next to the power of the Constitutional Court to suspend a declaration of invalidity, "in the interests of justice and good government," [7] pending correction of the constitutional defect in the legislation by Parliament. He held that a party wishing for the court to make such an order had to provide it with "reliable information" to justify its doing so. This information would necessarily depend for its detail on "the nature of the law in question and the character of the defect to be corrected." [8]

As a general rule, however, a government organ or other party wishing to keep an unconstitutional provision alive should indicate, "at least," the following:

  • what the negative consequences for justice and good government of an immediately operational declaration of invalidity would be;
  • why other existing measures would not be an adequate alternative stop-gap;
  • what legislation on the subject, if any, was in the pipeline; and
  • how much time would reasonably be required to adopt corrective legislation. [9]

Parties interested in opposing such an order should be given an opportunity to motivate their opposition. Legal representatives should ensure that they have "appropriate and timeous instructions" on the matter; they should "not do their best while on their feet or else rely on a rushed telephone call at the tail-end of the hearing." [10]

In the present matter, counsel for the Minister of Health and Mr Coote (the third and fourth respondents respectively) had requested by letter some days after the conclusion of the hearing that the court receive written evidence as to why it was imperative that the court make a declaration of specified inconsistency, rather than one of general invalidity. No notice was given to the applicant who, on being informed of the request, had indicated strenuous opposition. The request was refused. "These," Sachs held,

are matters that should be addressed at the earliest opportunity. If, for example, it is necessary to adduce evidence, this can be done under the proviso to s 102(1) of the interim Constitution prior to the referral of the matter to this Court. The issues should also be properly canvassed in the written arguments. [11]

"Right at the end of the proceedings," [12] the court's attention had been drawn by counsel for the respondents to the fact that section 28(1)(a) of the Act was due to be amended by the Medicines and Related Substances Control Amendment Act. On this Sachs held as follows:

Since we are not called upon to decide whether the new provisions relating to entry, search and seizure would be consistent with the Constitution and the principles outlined in the present judgment, I will say nothing further on the matter, and simply state that in my opinion there are no grounds upon which this Court could accede to the request by counsel to use its powers under s 98(5) to suspend the effect of a declaration of invalidity pending correction of its defects. [13]

The order of invalidity, therefore, took immediate effect.

Retrospective effect

As to the power of the court to give retrospective effect to its order of invalidity, Sachs held that a general declaration of invalidity with the retrospective effect would impact negatively on good government by rendering unlawful all searches conducted after the retrospective date specified. This could create considerable uncertainty regarding the validity of proceedings conducted on the basis of evidence obtained as a result of such searches. It could also give rise to delictual claims by persons subjected to searches and seizures after that date, adding further burdens to a health budget already under considerable strain. [14]

Obiter

Although the provision in the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act was struck down, Sachs J made an obiter comment to the effect that Chapter 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act appeared to be in line with constitutional requirements.

Related Research Articles

Pith and substance is a legal doctrine in Canadian constitutional interpretation used to determine under which head of power a given piece of legislation falls. The doctrine is primarily used when a law is challenged on the basis that one level of government has encroached upon the exclusive jurisdiction of another level of government.

Constitutional Court of South Africa Apex court in South Africa

The Constitutional Court of South Africa is a supreme constitutional court established by the Constitution of South Africa, and is the apex court in the South African judicial system, with general jurisdiction.

<i>National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Home Affairs</i> South African legal case

National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others, [1999] ZACC 17, is a 1999 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which extended to same-sex partners the same benefits granted to spouses in the issuing of immigration permits. It was the first Constitutional Court case to deal with the recognition of same-sex partnerships, and also the first case in which a South African court adopted the remedy of "reading in" to correct an unconstitutional law. The case is of particular importance in the areas of civil procedure, immigration, and constitutional law and litigation.

Remedies in Singapore constitutional law

The remedies available in a Singapore constitutional claim are the prerogative orders – quashing, prohibiting and mandatory orders, and the order for review of detention – and the declaration. As the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore is the supreme law of Singapore, the High Court can hold any law enacted by Parliament, subsidiary legislation issued by a minister, or rules derived from the common law, as well as acts and decisions of public authorities, that are inconsistent with the Constitution to be void. Mandatory orders have the effect of directing authorities to take certain actions, prohibiting orders forbid them from acting, and quashing orders invalidate their acts or decisions. An order for review of detention is sought to direct a party responsible for detaining a person to produce the detainee before the High Court so that the legality of the detention can be established.

South African family law is concerned with those legal rules in South Africa which pertain to familial relationships. It may be defined as "that subdivision of material private law which researches, describes and regulates the origin, contents and dissolution of all legal relationships between: (i) husband and wife ; (ii) parents, guardians and children; and (iii) relatives related through blood and affinity."

"As far as family law is concerned, we in South Africa have it all. We have every kind of family; extended families, nuclear families, one-parent families, same-sex families, and in relation to each one of these there are controversy, difficulties and cases coming before the courts or due to come before the courts. This is the result of ancient history and recent history [...]. Our families are suffused with history, as family law is suffused with history, culture, belief and personality. For researchers it's a paradise, for judges a purgatory."

Daniels v Campbell NO and Others, an important case in South African law, was heard in the Constitutional Court on 6 November 2003, with judgment handed down on 11 March 2004. The applicant was a woman married in terms of Muslim rites, whose husband had died intestate. The court noted that Muslim marriages were not recognised in South African law. It concluded that this violated section 9 of the Constitution. Accordingly, it was held that the applicant could inherit. The ambit of this judgment was restricted to de facto monogamous Muslim marriages; it was extended to polygamous Muslim marriages in Hassam v Jacobs. In this Context the word "spouses" was questioned

Afrox Healthcare Ltd v Strydom, an important case in South African contract law, was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on May 13, 2002, with judgment handed down on May 31.

<i>Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom</i> South African legal case

Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Grootboom and Others is an important case in South African law, heard in the Constitutional Court on 11 May 2000, with judgment handed down on 4 October.

Bhe and Others v Magistrate, Khayelitsha and Others; Shibi v Sithole and Others; SA Human Rights Commission and Another v President of the RSA and Another was an important case in South African customary law.

<i>Minister of Public Works v Kyalami Ridge Environmental Association</i> South African legal case

Minister of Public Works and Others v Kyalami Ridge Environmental Association and Others, an important case in South African law, was decided by the Constitutional Court on May 29, 2001.

<i>Investigating Directorate: SEO v Hyundai Motors</i> South African legal case

Investigating Directorate: Serious Economic Offences and Others v Hyundai Motor Distributors (Pty) Ltd and Others; In Re Hyundai Motor Distributors (Pty) Ltd and Others v Smit NO and Others, an important case in South African law, was heard in the Constitutional Court on March 16, 2000, with judgment handed down on August 25. Chaskalson P, Langa DP, Goldstone J, Kriegler J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Yacoob J and Cameron AJ were the judges.

<i>Fedsure Life Assurance v Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan Council</i> South African legal case

Fedsure Life Assurance Ltd and Others v Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan Council and Others is an important case in South African law, heard in the Constitutional Court on 18 and 20 August 1998, with judgment handed down 14 October. The bench was occupied by Chaskalson P, Langa DP, Ackermann J, Goldstone J, Kriegler J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, O'Regan J, Sachs J and Yacoob J. DJB Osborn appeared for the appellants, RM Wise for the first respondent, and CZ Cohen for the second, third, fourth and fifth respondent.

<i>Coetzee and Matiso</i> South African legal case

Coetzee v Government of the Republic of South Africa; Matiso and Others v Commanding Officer, Port Elizabeth Prison, and Others is an important case in South African law, with an especial bearing on civil procedure and constitutional law. It concerned the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Magistrates' Courts Act. It was heard, March 6, 1995, in the Constitutional Court by Chaskalson P, Mahomed DP, Ackermann J, Didcott J, Kentridge AJ, Kriegler J, Langa J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, O'Regan J and Sachs J. They delivered judgment on September 22. The applicant's attorneys were the Legal Resources Centres of Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and Johannesburg. Attorneys for the first and second respondents in the Coetzee application were the State Attorneys of Cape Town and Johannesburg, and Du Plessis & Eksteen for the Association of Law Societies. IMS Navsa SC appeared for the applicants in both matters, D. Potgieter for the first and second respondents in the Coetzee matter, and JC du Plessis for the Association of Law Societies.

K v Minister of Safety and Security is an important case in the South African law of delict and South African constitutional law. It was heard by the Constitutional Court on May 10, 2005, with judgment handed down on June 13. Langa CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Skweyiya J, Van der Westhuizen J and Yacoob J presided. W. Trengove SC appeared for the applicant; PF Louw SC appeared for the respondent. The applicant's counsel was instructed by the Women's Legal Centre, Cape Town. The respondent's attorney was the State Attorney, Johannesburg.

South African administrative law is the branch of public law in that country which regulates the legal relations of public authorities, whether with private individuals and organisations or with other public authorities, or better say, in present-day South Africa, which regulates "the activities of bodies that exercise public powers or perform public functions, irrespective of whether those bodies are public authorities in a strict sense." According to the Constitutional Court, administrative law is "an incident of the separation of powers under which the courts regulate and control the exercise of public power by the other branches of government."

Minister of Health & another v New Clicks SA (Pty) Ltd & others: in re Application for Declaratory Relief is an important case in South African law, with significance especially in the areas of civil procedure and constitutional law.

S v Masiya is an important case in South African criminal law, decided by the Constitutional Court.

Fraser v ABSA, an important case in South African criminal procedure and constitutional litigation, concerned the interpretation of chapter 5 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act (POCA), dealing with the restraint and confiscation of property that constitutes the proceeds of crime.


Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of SA and Another: In re ex parte President of the Republic of South Africa and Others is an important case in South African constitutional law. It deals with relevant issues about the role of the courts in controlling public power, and raises the question of whether or not a court has the power to review and set aside a decision by the President of South Africa to bring an Act of Parliament into force.

Constitutional litigation in South Africa is an area of the law in that country dealing with the rules and principles applicable to cases that involve constitutional matters. It examines the constitutional jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal, and considers the various rules peculiar to these courts that are relevant to constitutional litigation, such as the admission of an amicus curiae, the duty to raise a constitutional matter as early as possible in the proceedings, and the duty to join the relevant organ of state in a case involving a constitutional issue.

References

  1. ↑ "Mistry v Interim National Medical and Dental Council and Others" . Retrieved 16 July 2013.
  2. ↑ Para 6.
  3. ↑ Para 6.
  4. ↑ Para 6.
  5. ↑ Para 7.
  6. ↑ Para 7.
  7. ↑ s 98(5) of the interim Constitution.
  8. ↑ Para 37.
  9. ↑ Para 37.
  10. ↑ Para 37.
  11. ↑ Para 38.
  12. ↑ Para 39.
  13. ↑ Para 39.
  14. ↑ Para 41.

Sources

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.