REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO.: 2024-008772
In the matter between:
V-TECH (PTY) LTD APPLICANT
and
SOUTH AFRICAN HEALTH PRODUCTS
REGULATORY AUTHORITY RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
Van der Schyff J
Introduction
[1] The applicant, V -Tech, seeks interdictory relief against the respondent, the South
African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA), pending the outcome of
two internal appeals lodged in terms of section 24A of the Medicines and Related
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO
Date: 6 August 2024 E van der Schyff
2
2
Substances Act 101 of 1965 (the Medicines Act) against various decisions of
SAHPRA.
[2] SAHPRA is an organ of state established in terms of section 2 of the Medicines Act.
It is the regulatory authority responsible for the monitoring, evaluation, regulation,
investigation, inspection, registration, and control of medicines, scheduled
substances, clinical trials, and related matters in the public interest.
[3] V-Tech (Pty) Ltd is the owner of two community pharmacies, one of which is V-Tech
Prescriptions Pharmacy. V -Tech Prescriptions Pharmacy is a compounding
pharmacy. For approximately the past 15 to 20 years, 1 V-Tech Pre scription
Pharmacy and its predecessor have been importing internationally sourced active
pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) , which are scheduled substances , for purposes
of compounding veterinary medicines. Few APIs are manufactured locally for use in
veterinary medicines, and the veterinary medicines industry cannot function without
accessing the international market for both active and inactive ingredients.
[4] Neither SAHPRA nor its predecessor, the Medicines Control Council, required V-
Tech or its community pharmacy, V-Tech Prescriptions Pharmacy, to have an import
licence in terms of section 22C(1)(b) of the Medicines Act . It was only recently,
during the last 12 to 15 months, that SAHPRA raised the issue that V -Tech
Prescription Pharmacy, or V-Tech (Pty) Ltd, requires an import licence in terms of
the Medicines Act to import APIs. SAHPRA detained consignments of APIs at the
port of entry on 30 May 2023, 11 June 2023, 12 June 2023 , and 19 June 2023.
During June 2023, V-Tech noted an appeal in terms of section 24A of the Medicines
Act against SAHPRA’s decision to detain and place an embargo on several
consignments of AIPs.
[5] Despite raising the licence issue, SAHPRA continued to release the APIs imported
by V-Tech on a without prejudice basis when V-Tech provided documentary proof
1 The founding affidavit and annexures thereto refer respectively to ‘more than 10 years’, ‘between
15 and 20 years’ and ‘approximately 20 years.’ In the answer to the supplementary affidavit filed by
SAHPRA, V-Tech refers to a period of ‘more than 18 years’.
3
3
that it previously imported the relevant APIs without a licence. During December
2023, SAHPRA apparently changed tack and communicated the following to V -
Tech:
‘I wish to draw your attention to the provisions of section 22C(1)(b)
of the Medicines and Related Substances Act, as amended which
stipulates that the importer of a scheduled substance must be the
holder of a licence issued in terms of Section 22C(1)(b).
Please be advised that, without any admission of wrongdoing and
for the purposes of resolving this matter, V-Tech will be allowed to
import Methocarbamol on Bill of Entry 023-488366664.
Please be advised that from the 28 th of February 2024, all
medicine and scheduled substances imports must comply with the
requirements, failing which release for import will not be authorised
from the port of entry. Further be advised that SAHPRA has
licenced companies to import scheduled su bstances, and such
information is publicly available and accessible on SAHPRA’s
website,’
[6] V-Tech approached the urgent court for an urgent interim in terdictory relief to
suspend SAHPRA’s decision not to release for import any APIs from 28 February
2024 unless V-Tech holds an import licence as envisaged by section 22C(1)(b) of
the Medicines Act until the statutory appeal committee which has already been
appointed by the Minister of Health, has made a ruling regarding the question
whether a licenced community pharmacy such as V-Tech Prescriptions Pharmacy,
requires an import licence to import APIs or not. The application was struck from the
roll. V-Tech subsequently enrolled the application on the opposed motion roll. The
applicant effective seeks an order th at the status quo ante as it prevailed before 1
March 2024 when SAHPRA commenced enforcing their interpretation of section
22C(1)(b) of the Medicines Act be preserved pending the exhaustion of the internal
remedies provided for in the Medicines Act.
4
4
Applicable legal principles
[7] Before the parties' respective contentions are analysed, it is necessary to reflect on
the legal principles that apply in interim applications for interim relief and the purpose
affidavits serve in motion proceedings.
[8] To be successful, an applicant seeking interim relief must establish four factors. The
factors are summarised in Reckitt & Colman SA (Pty) Ltd v SC Johnson & Son (SA)
(Pty) Ltd.2 The applicant must establish- (i) that it has a clear right or, if not clear a
prima facie right, (ii) that there is a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm
if the interim relief is not granted and the ultimate relief is eventually granted, (iii) that
the balance of convenience favours the grant of an interim interdict; and (iv) that the
applicant has no other satisfactory remedy.
[9] The court in Reckitt explained that i n determining whether the applicant’s right is
prima facie established, though open to some doubt, a court should consid er the
facts set out by the applicant together with any facts set out by the respondent which
the applicant cannot dispute, and consider whether having regard to the inherent
probabilities, the applicant could obtain final relief at the trial of the main action. The
facts set out by the respondent should then be considered , and if serious doubt is
thrown upon the case of the applicant, it cannot succeed.3
[10] It is trite law that the affidavits in motion proceedings serve to define the issues
between the parties and place the essential evidence before the court. 4 The facts
set out in the founding affidavit must be set out simply, clearly, and in a chronological
manner. Primary facts constitute the evidence before the court. It is well-established
that the drawing of inferences from primary facts is the function of the court. In the
absence of primary facts, the inferences drawn by a deponent are nothing more than
2 1995 (1) SA 725 (T) 729I-730G.
3 See also Webster v Mitchell 1948 (1) SA 1186 (W) 1189-1190.
4 Swissborough Diamond Mines v Government of the RSA 1999 (2) SA 279 (TPD) 323-324.
5
5
that deponent's conclusions, and it does not constitute evidential material capable
of supporting a cause of action.5
The parties’ respective contentions
The applicant’s case
[11] V-Tech Prescriptions Pharmacy is registered as a community pharmacy and
authorised to compound medicines or scheduled substances for veterinary use. 6
The pharmacy does not sell its product wholesale.
[12] V-Tech Prescriptions Pharmacy and its predecessor have been using internationally
sourced pharmaceutical ingredients for a period of approximately 20 years. Few
APIs are manufactured locally, and the industry relies on imported ingredients.
SAHPRA and its predecessor allowed V -Tech to import APIs without requiring a
licence, until the recent change of stance.
[13] V-Tech contends that it has a prima facie right to import scheduled substances
without having to obtain a licen ce from SAHPRA. It submits that u nder proper
construction and interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions, a community
pharmacy is entitled to import APIs for compounding purposes without having to
acquire a licence in terms of s ection 22C(1)(b) of the Medicines Act. There is no
statutory provision in either the Medicines Act or the Pharmacy Act requiring a
community pharmacy to acquire an import licence to import any scheduled
substance. In fact, V -Tech contends, ‘a community pharmacy, licensed with the
SAPC, is specifically not included in the list of entities to whom a licence to import a
medicine or scheduled substance may be granted by the respondent in terms of
Section 22C(1)(b).’ The right of a community pharmacy to import scheduled
5 Die Dros (Pty) Ltd v Telefon Beverages (Pty) Ltd 2003 (4) SA 207 (C) at para [28].
6 Regulation 18(2) of the Regulations Relating to the Practice of Pharmacy made in terms of section
35A of the Pharmacy Act 53 of 1974; section 14(4) of the Medicines Act, the Rules Relating to Good
Pharmacy Practice, regulations 1 and 3 of the General regulations promulgated in terms of the
Medicines Act.
6
6
substances is only limited in terms of section 22A(11)(a) relating to specified
schedule 5, schedule 6, and schedule 7 substances.
[14] V-Tech is registered with and falls under the auspices of the South African Pharmacy
Council (SAPC). The SAPC has inspected V -Tech regularly to ensure compliance
with the Pharmacy Act and its regulations. SAHPRA serves a different purpose than
SAPC, with the latter controlling the conduct of pharmacists.
[15] V-Tech contends that SAHPRA’s decision threatens V-Tech’s very existence as the
compounding of veterinary medicines on prescriptions of veterinary professionals
constitutes the core business of its two pharmacies.
[16] The inability to import APIs ‘will undoubtedly lead to the termination of the applicant’s
business and the closure of its two community pharmacies.’ This will result in the
loss of millions of Rands in turnover, equipment, and investment, and fifty employees
will be left destitute. The ensu ing consequences will have a devastating effect on
veterinarians, their animal patients, and animal owners all over South Africa, an
absence of compounded veterinary medicine could lead to scores of livestock
getting sick with resultant food shortages. The large wildlife industry in South Africa
relies on the applicant’s compounded medicines because there are no registered
medicines available. If the applicant is prevented from rendering its service of
providing compounded medicines on prescription, it will have a severe negative
impact on animal health and food security in the country. V-Tech was officially
approved by the SAPC as a training facility in 2019. The c essation of V -Tech
Prescriptions Pharmacy’s community pharmacy activities will bring an end to all
training services.
[17] V-Tech contends that it has a reasonable apprehension-
‘that if [SAHPRA] were to place an embargo on all scheduled
substances and APIs imported by the [it] from 28 February 2024,
unless [it’s] V-Tech Prescriptions Pharmacy has an import licence,
it will cause irreparable harm to [V-Tech].’
7
7
[18] The termination of its business would, among others, cause V -Tech not to be able
to pursue the internal appeals before the appeal committee appointed in terms of
section 24A.
[19] V-Tech contends that the balance of convenience clearly favours it if regard is had
to the prejudice that V-Tech will suffer if the interim interdict is not granted, SAHPRA
will not suffer any prejudice. There have not been any adverse consequences as a
result of V-Tech importing APIs through the years. V-Tech complies stringently with
the norms and standards required of a community pharmacy as set out in the
regulations to the Pharmacy Act and the SAPC’s Rules. To ensure that the APIs
used by V -Tech Prescriptions Pharmacy comply with the highest pharmaceutical
standards, V -Tech, among others, sources APIs only from reputable foreign and
local suppliers that are ISO-GMP or GDP certified, test all injectable compounds for
sterility by an independent SANAS or SAHPRA accredited laboratory, test batches
of compounded medicines by accredited laboratories, keeps retention samples of
each batch of compounded medicine, use the draft SAHPRA GMCP Guidelines to
standardise the compounding process. Due to the service s V-Tech provides, the
‘wider public interest’ favours it.
[20] V-Tech contends that there is no other remedy available to it. An embargo on all
scheduled substances imported by it would lead to the termination of its b usiness,
and an action for damages cannot be pursued by an entity that has ceased to exist.
The respondent’s answer
[21] SAHPRA acknowledges that V-Tech imported APIs for a substantial period of time,
possibly spanning 20 years, without having been required to acquire a licen ce to
import. SAHPRA explains that until recently it had no presence at South Africa’s
ports of entry. And had to rely on Port Health officials who neither reported nor were
accountable to SAHPRA. This has now changed and enables SAHPRA to identify
long-standing practices in direct contravention of the Medicines Act regulatory
framework. SAHPRA emphasises that it advised V-Tech already in June 2023 that
8
8
it is unlawful to import scheduled substances without a licence issued in terms of
section 22C(1)(b) of the Medicines Act.
[22] SAHPRA states that the primary difficulty with V -Tech’s case is that the detained
goods were released to V -Tech subsequent to the lodging of the section 24A
appeals. In SAHPRA’s view, the matters giving rise to the appeals have been
resolved, essentially ousting the appeals committee’s jurisdiction to entertain the
merits of the appeals. In a ddition, SAHPRA contends it is the detainment of
consignments that is the subject matter of the appeals lodged and not SAHPRA’s
decision of 7 December 2023. Until that decision has been reviewed and set aside,
it must be given full legal effect. SAHPRA submits that the appeal committee does
not have the power to declare an administrative decision ultra vires; only a High
Court can make that determination.
[23] SAHPRA states that V-Tech mischaracterises the decision conveyed to it in the letter
of December 2023 referred to above. SAHPRA does not insist that V -Tech
Prescription Pharmacy acquire a licence to import APIs but that V-Tech (Pty) Ltd, as
the company that owns the community pharmacy, must either obtain a licence itself
to import or use the services of an entity that is licensed to import.
[24] SAHPRA submits that if V -Tech succeeds in obtaining the relief it seeks, it will
effectively be given free reign, without any regulatory oversight, to continue
importing APIs of untested quality and continue using thos e APIs without any
oversight by SAHPRA.
[25] SAHPRA denies that V -Tech established a prima facie right and contends that V -
Tech’s interpretation of the applicable legal framework is fatally flawed. V-Tech
Prescriptions Pharmacy’s entitlement to compound in accordance with section 14(4)
of the Medicines Act is neither here nor there. The action SAHPRA is regulating
through requiring a section 22C(1)(b) licence is the actual importing of APIs.
SAHPRA submits that the only reasonable way to understand section 2 2C(1)(b) it
its broader regulatory context is by understanding that this provision authorises
SAHPRA to issue licences to only the persons and entities listed in the section, and
absent a licence to import, an entity may not import scheduled substances.
9
9
[26] SAHPRA takes issue with the fact that V -Tech seeks interim interdictory relief
without informing the court- (i) when it expects a new consignment of APIs to arrive
in South Africa, (ii) by when it expects to run out of its current stock. Without this
information, and (iii) whether and to what extent suitable alternative products are
locally available, SAHPRA contends, it is impossible to determine when and how
SAHPRA’s decision to enforce the licence requirement will impact on V -Tech.
SAHPRA submits that V-Tech allegation that the decision to require V-Tech to obtain
a licence for importing APIs will cause it irreparable harm is V -Tech’s opinion and
not substantiated by primary facts. There is no evidence even to suggest that in the
absence of granting an int erim interdict SAHPRA’s decision could ‘result in the
termination of its entire business …’ To be irreparable or irreversible , the alleged
harm would have to be such that by the time the appeal committee has made its
ruling, V-Tech’s community pharmacies will no longer be trading.
[27] As far as the balance of convenience is concerned, SAHPRA submits that while it is
unlikely to suffer prejudice or harm if the interdictory relief is granted, the public
interest requires SAHPRA to exercise regulatory control over the importation of APIs
of unproven quality and safety which is used to supply compounded medicines.
[28] SAHPRA contends that V -Tech has not even considered the option of contracting
with a licenced entity to source APIs as an interim mitigating measure, or explained
why V-Tech (Pty) Ltd does or did not attempt to secure its own importing licence.
The applicant’s reply
[29] I note only the most pertinent aspects replied to by V -Tech, although I have
considered the totality of the replying affidavit.
i. V-Tech states that the appeals lodged under section 24A of the Medicines
Act deal not only with the detained consignments of APIs but also with
SAHPRA’s reasons for the detention;
ii. V-Tech denies that SAHPRA made it clear during the preceding 12 months
that V-Tech (Pty) Ltd, the juristic entity, must obtain a licence to import or use
the services of an entity that is licenced to import;
10
10
iii. V-Tech, ironically, takes issue with SAHPRA releasing the consignments it
detained since June 2023 without V-Tech having acquired an import licence
and for failing to explain why the status quo should not be extended for a
further 2 to 3 months until the appeal committee has considered the matter,
or even a further 6 months thereafter if there is a review by the High court;
iv. V-Tech reiterated that the APIs are used to treat severe animal diseases in
respect of which, in some cases, no alternative medicines are available. If the
compounded medicine cannot be provided, such animals will suffer severely
or die;
v. V-Tech denies that it needed to inform SAHPRA of when it expected
consignments of APIs to arrive in South Africa, and by when it expects to
have run out of stock. It is sufficient that SAHPRA is aware of V -Tech’s core
business and that it uses imported APIs because these substances c annot
be sourced locally;
vi. V-Tech contends that ‘it is a matter of simple logic that if a compounding
pharmacy’s entire compounding business is reliant on the APIs which are
imported from abroad, that such business cannot continue to function in
accordance with ordinary business principles if its importation of APIs is
suddenly stopped.’
vii. V-Tech explains that while it may theoretically be able to register a wholesale
pharmacy which would be able to apply for an import licence, its business
model is not designed for conducting the business of a wholesale pharmacy;
viii. V-Tech claims that the current licensed wholesale pharmacies do not have
the technical expertise to source the very specialized APIs required to
compound veterinary medicines, nor the infrastructure t o confirm the quality
thereof. In addition, it would have a serious negative effect on V-Tech’s entire
cost structure, resulting in substantially higher prices of the compounding
medicines, which would have a severely prejudicial effect on its business in
a competitive market.
11
11
Papers filed subsequent to the matter being struck from the roll
[30] V-tech did not supplement its papers before enrolling the application on the opposed
motion court roll. SAHPRA filed an application to file a supplementary affidavit, to
which V-Tech filed an answer. SAHPRA’s application was granted since V-Tech did
not object and had the opportunity to answer to the supplementary affidavit.
[31] SAHPRA again addressed the issue of V -Tech’s claim that it will suffer irreparable
harm if the interim interdict is not granted. SAHPRA pointed out that V-Tech has not
been importing any APIs now for four months and appears to have used the services
of a licenced entity such as a licenced wholesaler or a distributor. According to
correspondence presented by a licenced entity, Multichem, it is evident that V-Tech
made use of MultiChem’s services to obtain three of the four substances that are
the subject of the section 24A appeal.
[32] V-Tech reiterated in its answer to the supplementary affidavit that a business such
as V -Tech ‘cannot disclose what APIs scheduled substances it currently has in
stock, and what (and by when) any replacement stocks are expected to arrive in
South Africa. This is privileged information which, if disclosed in a public document
such as this, V -Tech’s competitors will use to their advantage, which would be
detrimental to V-Tech’s business.’
[33] V-Tech confirmed that MultiChem has been one of V-Tech’s local suppliers for more
than seven a nd a half years . It also, sometimes. Procured scheduled substances
abroad on V -tech’s behalf. Circumstances now necessitated V -Tech to expand its
purchases of certain APIs from MultiChem. V -Tech claims, however, that as
foreseen the increased procurement of scheduled substances APIs from MultiChem
proved not to be feasible and cannot be continued by V-Tech in the long term. While
V-Tech has the expertise to source suitable APIs and to perform the necessary
quality control on the API, MultiChem does not have the technical expertise to source
the very specialized APIs required to compound veterinary medicines, nor the
infrastructure to confirm the quality thereof. In addition , there is a substantial extra
cost added to the APIs when sourcing it via the licenced importers and distributors.
12
12
Discussion
[34] Despite SAHPRA’s explanation that it did not have a presence at the country’s ports
of entrance, it was difficult to understand why the reality of V-Tech importing APIs
only became an issue recently and why it was able to import scheduled substances
for almost twenty years ostensibly under the radar of the authority claiming to be the
regulatory authority. Although neither of the parties referred thereto, I found it of
significance to note that se ction 22C(1)(b) of the Medicines Act was amended in
2015, and the amendment only commenced on 1 June 2017. Section 22C(1)(b) did
not, before this amendment, contain the words ‘import’ or ‘export’.7
[35] The question of whether V -Tech has established prima facie that it is entitled to
import API-scheduled substances, lies at the interface of the regulatory authority of
the South African Pharmacy Council and SAHPRA. It is wholly dependent on the
interpretation of the legal framework constituted by the Pharmacy Ac t and the
Medicines Act. As I indicated to counsel, I am of the view that the SAPC has an
interest in the outcome of this matter. V -Tech essentially contends that it is
authorised to import the APIs because of its status as a licenced community
pharmacy an d that the SAPC is the regulatory authority overseeing its activities .
[1] 7 Prior to its amendment section 22C(1)(b) provided as follows:
‘the Authority may, on application in the prescribed manner and on
payment of the prescribed fee, issue to a medical device or IVD
establishment, manufacturer, wholesaler or distributor of a product,
medical device or IVD a licence to manufacture, act as a wholesaler of
or distribute, as the case may be, such product, medical device or IVD
upon such conditions as to the application of such acceptable quality
assurance principles and good manufacturing and distribution practices
as the Authority may determine.’
In its recent formulation, section 22C(1)(b) provides as follows:
‘the Authority may, on application in the prescribed manner and on
payment of the prescribed fee, issue to a medical device or IVD
establishment, manufacturer, wholesaler or distributor of a medicine,
Scheduled substance, medical device or IVD a licence to manufacture,
import, export, act as a wholesaler of or distribute, as the case may be,
such medicine, Scheduled substance, medical device or IVD upon such
conditions as to the application of such acceptable quality assurance
principles and good manufacturi ng and distribution practices as the
Authority may determine.’
13
13
SAHPRA essentially contends that the scope of a communit y pharmacy, as
provided for in regulation 18 of the Regulation pertaining to the Practice of
Pharmacy,8 is subject to the Medicines Act. A determination of the legal question
that underpins the existence of V -Tech’s alleged prima facie right will potentially
affect every compounding pharmacy in the country, and as the regulatory authority
of pharmacists, the SAPC, and perhaps even the Association of Compounding
Pharmacies, have an interest in the outcome of the litigation and should be provided
with an opportunity to present their submissions before a final determination is made.
However, even if I accept that V-Tech made out a case that it has a prima facie right
to import APIs, V-Tech faces an insurmountable hurdle.
[36] This court must decide on the basis of the primary facts presented to it, whether V -
Tech will suffer irreparable harm if the interim relief is not granted and V-Tech
ultimately succeeds in its appeal against SAHPRA’s decision that it requires a
licence before it is allowed to import APIs.9
[37] V-Tech’s submission is that it is a matter of simple logic that it will suffer irreparable
harm. The facts indicate that V -Tech is seriously inconvenienced by SAHPRA’s
decision. However, no case is made out that it will suffer irreparable harm. In a
matter involving business or financial concerns, the applicant must, in its founding
affidavit, set out in detail the nature of its business and the loss of revenue that the
applicant is likely to suffer.
[38] Contrary to what V -Tech submitted, the court should hav e been presented with
detailed facts relating to the prejudice and harm V -Tech suffers and will suffer in
future as a result of SAHPRA’s decision to enable the court to draw inferences from
the primary facts presented. SAHPRA’s decision does not prevent V -Tech from
compounding medicine, or prevent V -Tech from sourcing the required APIs from
licenced wholesalers. V -Tech does not indicate what percentage of the required
APIs cannot be sourced from licenced wholesalers, or how it will impact on the prices
of its products if the APIs are to be sourced from licenced wholesalers.
8 GNR 1158 of 20 November 2000.
9 Ex Parte Lipshitz 1913 CPD 737.
14
14
[39] Irreparable harm is generally not a matter of ‘simple logic’. This becomes clear when
regard is had to some of the broad-stroked averments made by V-Tech – e.g. it was
already indicated above that V -Tech submitted in its founding affidavit that
SAPHRA’s decision affects animal owners all over South Africa, that an absence of
compounded veterinary medicine could lead to scores of livestock getting sick with
resultant food shortages, that the large wildlife industry in South Africa relies on the
applicant’s compounded medicines because there are no registered medicines
available, that the applicant is prevented from rendering its service of providing
compounded medicines on prescription, it will have a severe negative impact on
animal health and food security in the country . In the replying affidavit and the
answer to the supplementary affidavit filed by SAHPRA, V-Tech, however, contends
that its business rivals will benefit unduly if it must mark up prices because it is forced
to buy APIS from licenced wholesalers at higher prices, or reveal in public
documents what APIs it requires or have in storage. The whole veterinary community
is thus not solely dependent on the medicine compounding by V-Tech, as there are
other rival pharmacies compounding medicine for the veterinary community.
[40] As for the impact of the decision on V-Tech’s revenue, no facts were presented that
allow the court to draw the inference that any prejudice suffered by V -Tech is, or
would be irreparable. In the urgent court, V -Tech contended that if the matter was
not heard as a matter of urgency, it would have devastating consequences for V -
Tech’s future. Five months down the line, V-Tech is still in business. By not confiding
the costs of staying in business to the court, but holding the view that it needs not to
inform SAHPRA of the measures it took to remain in business, V-Tech deprived the
court of the factual basis to conclude that it will suffer irreparable harm if the interim
relief is not granted. As a result, the application stands to be dismissed with costs ,
and I need not deal with the remaining requirements for obtaining interim relief.
[41] The general principle is that costs follow success. Both parties used the services of
two counsel. Considering the complexity of the issues at hand, it is just that the
respondent’s counsel’s costs are determined on Scale B.
15
15
ORDER
In the result, the following order is granted:
1. The application is dismissed with costs, which costs include the costs of two
counsel on Scale B.
____________________________
E van der Schyff
Judge of the High Court
Delivered: This judgment is handed down electronically by uploading it to the electronic file of
this matter on CaseLines.
For the applicant: Adv. J. H. Ströh SC
With: Adv. O Ben-zeev
Instructed by: Ciliers & Reynders Inc.
For the respondent: Adv. J.M. Berger
With: Adv. E.C. Chabalala
Instructed by: Maluks Attorneys
Date of the hearing: 31 July 2024
Date of judgment: 6 August 2024