IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
(1) REPORTABLE: NO Case Number: A216/2024
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: YES
1 JULY 2025
DATE IGNATURE
In the matter between:
TARRYN ABRAHAMS : First Appellant
AJAY BEERBAL Second Appellant
NICOLETTE ENGELBRECHT Third Appellant
THULISILE MOLOI Fourth Appellant
OKUHLE NXUSANI Fifth Appellant
ANTHONY PIERDICA Sixth Appellant
and
HEALTH PROFESSIONS
COUNCIL OF SOUTH AFRICA First Respondent
THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE
AD HOC APPEALCOMMITTEE OF
ii
THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS
COUNCIL OF SOUTH AFRICA: ADV JN MOGOTSI Second Respondent
Summary: Section 20 of the Health Professions Act 56 of 1974 — appeal against the
decision of the HPCSA Disciplinary Appeals Committee — rule 22 of the Ethical Rules
of Conduct for Practitioners Registered Under the Health Professions Act read
together with the Scope Regulations published in terms of section 33 of the Health
Professions Act — the appellants neither transgressed the HPCSA's Business Policy
nor did they allow themselves to be exploited — conviction of the appellants is
unsustainable — The decision of the Disciplinary Appeals Committee set aside
JUDGMENT
MUDAU, ADJP:
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal pursuant to section 20 of the Health Professions Act 56 of 1974
(the Health Professions Act) against the decision of a Disciplinary Appeals
Committee of the first respondent, the Health Professions Council of South Africa
(HPCSA). Section 20 of the Health Professions Act allows any person who is
aggrieved by any decision of the HPCSA, the Professional Board or a
Disciplinary Appeals Committee, to appeal to the appropriate Division of the High
Court against such decision.
[2] The Disciplinary Appeals Committee had concluded that the appellants were
unfairly treated by their employer, Netcare Hospitals Proprietary Limited
(Netcare), for not performing their clinical duties for three months in an instance
where there was imminent monetary benefit in favour of Netcare, which conduct
allegedly fell within the provisions of rule 22 of the Ethical Rules of Conduct for
Practitioners Registered Under the Health Professions Act of South Africa, 1974
(the Ethical Rules)'. The findings of unethical conduct by the Professional
Conduct Committee were confirmed an appeal but the sanctions imposed were
1 Rule 22 of the Ethical Rules provides that a practitioner shall not permit himself or herself to be
exploited in any manner.
2
reduced.
[3] The appeal is ultimately against the orders handed down by the Disciplinary
Appeals Committee. In the event that the findings of guilty are confirmed, the
appellants contend that the Disciplinary Appeals Committee's substituted
sanctions were unreasonable, and that a caution or reprimand would have been
appropriate. The appeal is also aimed at the decision of the Disciplinary Appeals
Committee in failing to set aside the decisions by the Professional Conduct
Committee in refusing the recusal application. In argument before us, the recusal
argument was not seriously pursued. In any event, in case the appellants are
successful on the merits, the aspect of recusal is rendered academic.
Furthermore, whether the Disciplinary Appeals Committee dealt with the recusal
applications or not is of no consequence, as they never had any jurisdiction to
do so. An appeal against their decision relating to the recusal is of no avail’.
Background facts
[4] | The background facts are largely common cause and therefore undisputed. At
all relevant times the appellants were registered with the HPCSA as medical
technologists. They were previously employed by Lancet Laboratories (Lancet).
The appellants took up employment with Netcare after resigning from Lancet.
This was after Netcare had advertised positions for regional laboratory
managers and medical technologists. Employment agreements were entered
into between Netcare and the appellants. The sixth appellant, Mr. Pierdica,
commenced employment on 1 April 2020, while others started on 1 October
2020.
[5] Dr. John Douglas, Chairperson of the National Pathology Group (NPG), filed a
complaint and requested an investigation through NPG's attorneys on 16
September 2020. The NPG is made up of the three big private laboratories
(Lancet, Ampath and Pathcare) in the country. The NPG's complaint claimed that
registered medical laboratory personnel took employment with Netcare and
continued working there despite Netcare not being a registered entity per the
2 See Basson v Hugo 2018(3) SA 46 (SCA).
3