a 8 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA (0
: a i a , Lip PE BPE EAS bybooo . Pa :
ce, INTHE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA ©
re -. 8 GAUTENG DIVISION. PRETORIA. i
oo “H) REPORTABLE: YES/NO SS areas nr a
: : (2) OF INTEREST: TO OTHER JUBGES: YENG. : a ; ;
ae anheas . — ae a
: DATE © SIGNATURE oe ; ;
- In the matters heiween:'- ae ae
|. -DRNORBERT WELKOVICS - oe APPELLANT
HEALTH PROFESSIONAL COUNCIL OF SOUTHLAFRICA RESPONDENT .
- The matier was heard in open courtand the judement was prepared and authored by <>.
a the judge whose name is reflecied:herein and was handed down electronically by oe
_ . -eireulation to the parties” legal representatives by email and by uploading it ta the SS
- eleeivanic file af: this matter on Casélines. The date of handing-dawi is deéined io be
_ INTRODUCTION co -
{1} This isan appeal in terms of Section 20.of the Health Professions Act 56 of | 974 (the. Act’)
against the verdict and sanction imposed on the appellant by the respondent. The appeal is
CONDONATION . . ' .
[2] The appellant brought an application for condanation: for the late filing of the. appéal. The
: condonation application 18 unepposed.. - —
a [3] in terms of Seétion 20(2).of the Act, the Notice of appeal must be giver within one month
from ‘the date on which the decision, was given: “The appellant received the veasoris for the
decision on 13" Jane 2024 and was teynited to file his appeal by 13% Tuly 2024. However, he
. . gniy Jauriched this application on thé 09 September 2024, .
[4] The appetant atiributes the delay to ihe-fact that his-legal nepresertative was out of the
country and further that he had to source funds as his insurer had been liquidated. Atier his ce
legal representative retumed, he consulted, but still tok some time ty secure the’ finances
required to pay his counsel,
[5]-H is trite that to. succeed with a condonation application the applicant has firstly to explain
the delay; good cause for the delay, the period of delay; the prospect of success ini the appeal
and absence of prejudies to fhe other party are: amongst the factors the court considers in
determining whether to grant’ coadonation, - a
~~ t6y In Melane v Santam Insurance Co Lid'1962 (4) SA S31 (A) ab 532C-F, the Appellate
” Division stated:
; “ty deciding whether sufficient cause lay beeh shown, the haské prinéipte is that the Court has a
a discretion, to be exercised judicially apon a consideration of all the facts, arid in essence it is
a matter of fairmess to both sides, Among the facts usually relevant are the degree of lateness,
tie explanation therefor, the prospects of success and the importance-of the ease. Ordinarily
these: fhots ate inter-related,- they ace not. individually devisive, for that would be a
. piecemeal appioach incompatible with 4 true discretion.“
[7] This principle was reaifpined by the Constitutional Court in Groothoorm v Natiinal
Prosecuting, Authority 2014 (2) SA 68 (CC), where the Court held that while the absenve of a
reayonuble explanaliot: or pear prospects of success muy be decisive, couité fitist adopt a °
: soriiext-sensitive approach that balances all relevant fitctors and ensures that the “interests. of
justice” are served, . :
[8] In-the’ present matter, the deytee of lateness is approximately 57 days, The explanation for
the-delay, the nved to secure funds, constitutes avatid and acceptible reason. The applicant has -
: Set out a bona-fide defence: He indicated that as'a privat healtheare practitioner, he has aright