REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: A13/2024
( 1) REPORT ABLE: YES / NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHE •
(3) REVISED.
-0~t:f J~9~->~
In the matter between:
WYNAND JOHANNES DERCKSEN Appellant
And
HEAL TH PROFESSION COUNCIL OF SOUTH AFRICA First Defendant
Dr PARMANAND NARAN Second Defendant
CORAM: MABESELE AND BAM JJ
JUDGMENT
MABESELE J( BAM J, concurring)
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment dated, 8
August 2024, under case no: A 13/2024. The parties argued both the issue of
jurisdiction raised by counsel for the respondents, as a point in limine, and, the
merits. The understanding being that the merits will not be considered should
the point in limine be upheld. This issue of jurisdiction is raised for the first time
at this hearing.
[2] The respondents argue that this court lacked jurisdiction to entertain this
matter, in July 2024. Accordingly , this application for leave to appeal against
the jud~ment dated, 8 August 2024, should not be entertained . The
respondents rely on regulation 4A of the regulations of the Health Professions
Act. This regulation came into effect from 23 June 2023. It provides as follows:
"(1) A complainant who is aggrieved by the decision of the PC/
may appeal to the appeals committee of the relevant professional
board against such decision and must provide reasons for such
appeal,
(2) Notice of appeal must be submitted within 30 days from the
date on which such decision was made or from the date the
complainant becomes aware of such decision."
[3] The first respondent considered the applicant's complaint against Dr Naran
on 27 to 28 February 2023. The decision was communicated to the applicant
on 22 March 2023 and the applicant was advised to approach the High Court,
2
in terms of Section 20 of the Health Professions Act, if aggrieved by the
committee 's decision. It is clear that regulation 4A, which cannot apply
retrospectively, came into effect almost three months after the first respondent
had communicated its decision to the applicant. Counsel for the second
respondent argues that section 20 does not provide for an appeal from the
decision of PCI. Section 20 reads as follows:
'Any person who is aggrieved by any decision of the council, a
professional board, or a disciplinary appeal committee , may
appeal to the appropriate High Court against such decision'
[4] Counsel for the second respondent misses a point, that the PCI is a
committee that serves under the Health Professions Council of South Africa.
Therefore , any decision taken by the PCI is deemed to have been taken by the
council. It is for this reason that the council and not the PCI communicated the
findings of the PCI to the applicant. Therefore, the applicant rightly
approached the High Court on the advice of the first respondent. For all these
reasons, this court had jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's matter in July
2024. Accordingly, this court is entitled to consider this application for leave to
appeal against its judgment. In addition, it will be unfair to the applicant if this
application is not considered. The reason is that, regulation 4A does not
accommodate the applicant, if regard is had to the provisions of regulation
4A(2) in paragraph 2 of this judgment. Should this court not entertain this
application, no institution will afford the applicant an opportunity to appeal to it,
against the decision of the PCI.
[5] The applicant's main argument is that Dr Naran applied incorrect methods
and procedures when he treated him, thereby aggravate his illness. This
argument was addressed in the judgment. The applicant does not dispute that
his complaint was considered by the PCI and decision communicated to him,
with reasons. Regard should be had that the applicant neither medically
trained nor does he possess any specialist qualification that qualifies him to
make a submission of this nature. He has no prospects of success. Therefore ,
this application should be dismissed with costs.
[6] In the result, the following order is made.
6.1 The application is dismissed .
6.2 The applicant should pay costs of respondents on Scale B.
(Judge of the
Pretoria)
Date of hearing
Date of judgment
Appearances :28 March 2025
: 2 May 2025
On behalf of the appellant : In person
On behalf of the first respondent : Adv. J. Themane
Instructed by :Sithole & Mokomane Attorneys
On behalf of the first respondent : Adv. N. Marshall
Instructed by : Macro be rt Attorneys
5