REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION 1 JOHANNESBURG
Case Number: 200904-2025
(1)
(2)
(3)
REPORTABLE: YES NO • ~
OF INTERES~OT RJUDGES : YE'SJNQ_J
REVISED: YE~
I'\ \ \ "2.. I 20 7sS -- -3=---
DATE
In the matter between:
NATIONAL HOSPITAL NETWORK
and
MEDSCHEME HOLDINGS (PTY} LTD
SOUTH AFRICAN MUNICIPAL WORKERS UNION
NATIONAL MEDICAL SCHEME
FEDHEAL TH MEDICAL SCHEME
Applicant
First Respondent
Second Respondent
Third Respondent
This Judgment is handed down electronically by circulation to the applicant's legal
representatives and the respondents by email, publication on Case Lines. The date
for the handing down is deemed ...... December 2025.
JUDGMENT
MALIJ
Introduction
(1 ] The applicant brought an urgent application as follows:
"PART A: URGENT INTERIM INTERDICT
1 . This application is heard as one of urgency and the applicant's non-compliance
with the ordinary rules of court relating to time periods, form and service is
condoned in terms of Rule 6(12);
2. Pending the final determination of Part B of this application:
a. The respondents are interdicted from implementing the RFP outcome issued
by the first respondent on 5 October 2025, by which 'SAMWUMED' and
'myFep' were introduced as sub-categories of 'tier 3' of the RFP under the
acute and day network surgery networks, to the exclusion of Melomed
hospitals;
b. The respondents are directed to implement the RFP outcome issued by the
first respondent on 18 September 2025;
3. Costs of the suit in the event of opposition; and
4. Such further and/or alternative relief."
[2] The applicant, a network or group of hospitals describes itself as a non-profit
company incorporated and registered in terms of the Companies A_ct, 2008 (as
amended) ('Companies Act'), whose main object is to, inter alia, promote the
interests of its private independent member hospitals, especially in negotiations
with relevant stakeholders in matters of common interest.
[3] The first respondent, Medscheme is an Administrator and Managed Care
Organisation in terms of Regulation 15B of the Regulations1 and is subject to
the provisions of Medical Schemes Act2 ('the MSA'). It is for a profit entity that
provide services such as processing beneficiary claims, designing networks
and benefits, managing membership, controlling data and information, and
negotiating with service providers on behalf of medical schemes, among others.
1 Medical Schemes Act 131 of 1998 Regulations GNR.1262 of 20 October 1999.
2 Act 131 of 1998
2
Medscheme performs some of these and additional functions in terms of the
written agreement contemplated in Regulation 18 of the Regulations.
[4] The second respondent is a mutual non-profit entity and medical scheme
registered in terms of section 24 (1) of the MSA, as read with Regulation 2 of
the Regulations ('SAMWUMED'). The third respondent is a mutual non-profit
entity and medical scheme registered in terms of section 24 (1) of the MSA, as
read with Regulation 2 of the Regulations ('FEDHEAL TH').
Common cause facts
[5] On 28 May 2025 Medscheme issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the
purpose of contracting, - inter alia:
(i) common collective tariffs (Fee for Service and Alternative
Reimbursement Models) for all facility types for schemes
participating in the collective negotiations; •
(ii) an acute hospital, day surgery and mental health network for the
participating network options;
(iii) future tariff increases for the duration of the agreement for all the
schemes options;
(iv) early settlement discount agreements; and
(v) radiology discounts linked to the 'relevant acute hospital network for
network options.
(6] The RFP outlines the technical requirements and measurement criteria to be
used in evaluating bids, which lists the collectively participating schemes in
Table 1. Likewise, it further sets out the different benefit options for which
Medscheme intends to contract on behalf of the medical schemes it
administers. The Registrar of the Council approves these benefit options for
Medical Schemes ('CMS') in terms of section 33 of the MSA.
[7] In terms of the RFP Medscheme aimed to contract acute; day surgery, and
mental health network disciplines and would oversee the evaluation and
3
selection process of bidde.rs. This process was intended to result in the
appointment of identified NHN private healthcare facilities ('selection process')
through its Evaluation Committee. The selection process would culminate in
different 'anchor' appointment for each network discipline, which could be
contracted across the various network options, as well as the appointment of
'filler' hospitals.
[8] Collective schemes reserve the right to negotiate with bidders regarding any
terms and conditions, including price, discounts, and other selection criteria
after the recommendations of the Evaluation Committee . One to five tiers were
created for the different networks and an agreement consequent upon the RFP
would be concluded to commence on 1 January 2026, for a minimum period of
3 (three) years, with the option to extend for an additional year.
(9) The RFP stated that the schemes are 'tiered' to establish a 'common tariff file'
and have the flexibility to pursue post-contract activities such as implementing
additional procedural networks, centres of excellence, and/or alternative
reimbursement models (ARMs) at a later stage. As expected, bids that respond
to the Passage "assessed for eligibility and preferred bidder status before
appointment".
(1 O] Following the submission of its bid to Medscheme, the applicant received an
outcome to its bid response on 18 September 2025 in terms of which, inter alia:
a majority of applicant's mental health facilities were appointed to 'anchor
networks' under tiers 2, 3 and 4. Several acute and day hospitals were
appointed as filler facilities in the acute and day surgery network for tiers 2, 3
and 4. Of significance Melamed Mitchells Plain and Melamed Gatesville were
appointed under tier-2 and 3 as Acute Hospital Network fillers. Five of the mental
health facilities were excluded for inefficiency.
[11) On 23 September 2025, the applicant wrote to the Med scheme urging it to
[11) On 23 September 2025, the applicant wrote to the Med scheme urging it to
consider the exclusion of mental health facilities and to think about greater
inclusion of its acute and day hospital members under the RFP. The applicant
provided reasons which are not disputed by Medscheme in support of its plea.
4
Amongst them, that a·pplicant hospitals encompass an "unchallengeable and
organic" bona tides to black economic empowerment.
[12] The black economic empowerment is not only in the actual
ownership/management, but in the location of the applicant's hospitals located
in predominantly black areas which were established long before it was not
economically viable to do so. Thus, showing commitment to genuine and
sincere empowerment. Therefore, overlooking those hospitals year after year
would undermine the purpose of bringing health facilities to poor disadvantaged
areas.
[1 3) On 5 October 2025, Medscheme responded to the applicant's letter of 23
September 2025 whose excerpts are referred above·. The response is as
follows at paragraphs 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3
"1.1. One of the key considerations of strategic purchasing is ensuring that
healthcare services are procured optimally to stretch the health Rand. One of the
areas of consideration is ensuring that where inefficiencies are identified they are
addressed.
1.2. We note NHN's request to include the identified inefficient hospitals to the
network for 2026 with a review conducted for 2027 network participation. We are ~
amenable to include these hospitals in the network and have them on the watch list.
However, we propose that their continued participation in the networks be reviewed
based on the efficiency at the end of Quarter 1 2026. This review will be conducted
in Quarter 3 of 2026. Should these hospitals still be inefficient, then they will be
removed from the network during 2026.
1.3. The rational for reviewing after Quarter 1 2026, is that the 12-month period
reviewed will then cover the period in which the decaying per diems were
implemented and therefore the effect of the new reimbursement arrangement will
reflect in the report."
[1 4] At paragraph 1.4, nine (9) hospitals which are on the watchlist are listed. The
parties continued with written exchanges until the applicant filed this application
parties continued with written exchanges until the applicant filed this application
on urgent basis seeking interim relief.
[1 5] At paragraph 2. The following bears:
5
"2. Acute and Day surgery networks
2.1 Medscheme has reviewed the motivation tabled by NHN given the
consideration of the principles tabled above. -The revised acute and day surgery
hospital networks arc attached [NHN Network list). Please note the Tier 3-day
surgery network is not included as that network is still under review. The updated
filler list for this tier will be shared once the review is completed."
[1 6] Of importance is that the decision in the revised list Melomed Mitchells Plain
and Melamed Gatesville are no longer on the list of acute day surgery fillers
which were appointed under tier 2 and 3 according to the letter of 18 September
2025. There is no reason provided for this change of heart. On 6 October 2025, •
the applicant responded to the decision of 5 October 2025 stating that it woulg
be amenable to the establishment of a watchlist and the agreeing to the .
assessment and hospital cost efficiencies of the hospitals on watchlist to be
conducted in July 2026 based on experience between April 2025 and March
2026.
[17] The applicant further requested that that the efficiency methodology be shared
with it by no later than the 21 st of October and be af:forded opportunity to
comment on the methodology. Also requested that the prevailing efficiency
results be shared with the applicant by no later than the 21 st of October 2025.
The applicant desired the speedy resolution as the decision of 5 October 2025
will be implemented on 1 January 2026. The applicant also requested
opportunity to comment on the results and that the comments will be accounted
for in subsequent assessments. The applicant further recorded amongst others
that the only difference between the two tier 3 networks ·is the exclusion of
Melamed hospitals, notably Melamed Gatesville and Melamed Mitchells Plain
from tier 3 SAMWUMED.
[18] On 14 October 2025, Medscheme responded to confirm the outcome of 5
October 2025. In part it reads:
October 2025. In part it reads:
"We confirm that the evaluation feedback that you have been provided through our
letter dated 05 October 2025 stands and contrary to your assertion is aligned to the
criteria stated in the RFP document. The differentiation of the networks at option or
6
scheme level was articulated in Section 4.2 and 4.3 of the RFP. The extracts of the
RFP are attached below for ease of reference The acute hospital networks will be
differentiated in size and hospital selection in accordance with option-specific
requirements, e.g. the Tier 2 network will be larger having more hospitals compared
to Tiers 3 and 4; The Schemes reserve the right to customise their networks,
including anchor hospitals, at the time of contracting and/or during the agreement,
based on Scheme/Option specific access."
[1 9] Follow ing numerous exchanges of correspondence , it appeared that the parties
we re not reaching amicably resolutions , hence the applicant launched this
app lication on urgent basis . The second and third respondents make common
cause with the first respondent , Medscheme .
Urgency
[20] The first question to be answered is whether the application meets the
req uirement of Rule 6 (12) of the Uniform Rules which provides as follows:
"(12) (a) In urgent applications the court or a judge may dispense with the forms
and service provided for in these Rules and may dispose of such matter at such
time and place and in such manner and in accordance with such procedure (which
shall as far as practicable be in terms of these Rules) as to it seems meet. (b) In
every affidavit or petition filed in support of any application under paragraph (a) of
this subrule, the applicant shall set forth explicitly the circumstances which he avers
render the matter urgent and the reasons why he claims that he could not be
afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course."
[21] In East Rock Trading 7 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Eagle Valley Granite (Pty) Ltd
and Others3 the court held :
"The correct and the crucial test is whether, if the matter were to follow its normal
course as laid down by the rules, an Applicant will be afforded substantial redress.
If he cannot be afforded substantial redress at the hearing in due course then the
If he cannot be afforded substantial redress at the hearing in due course then the
matter qualifies to be enrolled and heard as an urgent application."
[22] The timelines as gleaned from the background facts are common cause
between the parties. Applicant 's submission is that the case is urgent because
3 [2011] ZAGPJHC 196 at [9].
7
the impugned decision communicated on 5 October 2025 is intended to be
implemented with effect from 1 January 2026. That date coincides with the
commencement of the annual contracting cycle in which networks are fixed,
benefit options are activated, and tariffs are operationalised for the forthcoming
year. If the decision is implemented, the network architecture across the
relevant schemes will be reconfigured immediately and for a sustained period.
In practice, such reconfiguration is not susceptible to later reversal.
[23) Furthermore, at paragraph 34 of the Founding Affidavit the applicant makes the
following averment:
"This Court is faced with a decision where Medscheme is set to exclude certain
NHN private Healthcare facilities from participating in contract negotiations which
will begin on 1 January 2026 despite these NHN Healthcare Facilities qualifying
for appointment under RFP .. .. "
[24] Without interim relief, the applicant will not obtain substantial redress in due
course. The reason is structural rather than merely financial. Network inclusion
or exclusion determines referral flows. Specialist alignment, and the viability of
facilities in defined catchment areas. Once a facility is excluded for a contracting
year, the effects are immediate: specialists move lists; pate□ t flows are
redirected; community expectations adjust; and reputational sig·nals harden
against the excluded facility. Those dynamics arc path-dependent and persist
well beyond a single cycle. A later setting-aside order cannot restore lost
alignment , reconstitute referral habits, or reverse reputational attrition.
[25] In retort to the above Med scheme argued that while the applicant contends that
damages would be speculative, unquantifiable, and contested, the mere fact
that damages may be difficult to quantify does not render them an inadequate
remedy, nor does it justify urgent interdictory relief where the requirements for
such relief are not met. Therefore , the applicant has not demonstrated that
such relief are not met. Therefore , the applicant has not demonstrated that
damages would be so uncertain or projected as to justify bypassing tlie ordinary
remedies and seeking urgent interdictory relief. The law does not favour the
grant of an interdict where an adequate alternative remedy exists.
. ..
8
[26) Medscheme does not seriously dispute that the damages will be unquantifiable
in due course. Medscheme also does not dispute that the damages may be
difficult to quantify . The exclusion of Mitchells Plain and Gatesvlille is immediate
and obvious, Medscheme does not propose any redress of any kind in due
course, except that there shall be reviews in April, July and October 2026. Same
do not address the past losses when and if they get proven.
[27] For the fact tha_t damages would be difficult to quantify and the decision is
implementable as "of yesterday" as of 1 January 2026 this matter deserves to be
heard on urgent basis.
Interim relief
(28] The requirements for interim interdict are as follows:
(i) Prima facie right, (ii) well-grounded apprehension of harm, (iii) balance
of convenience must favour the applicant and (iv) the applicant must have
no other remedy.
Prima facie right
[29] The applicant's submission is that it has prima facie right to the relief, as the
outcome of the 5 October 2025 decision contravenes Regulation 1 SE (2) of
Medical Schemes Act of 1998 (MSA). Regulation 15E (2) of MSA pr:ovides for
"selection of participating health care providers is based upon a clearly defined and
reasonable policy which furthers the objectives of affordability, cost-effectiveness,
quality of care and member access to health services."
[30] Thus, the unexplained basis for the 5 October 2025 outcome; and the irrational
deviation from the 18 September 2025 outcome by Medscheme; all have a
direct impact on the contract to be concluded on 1 January 2026 at the instance
of Medscheme. The prima facie right arises from three interlocking sources: (a)
the statutory and regulatory framework governing managed care contracting
under the MSA and its Regulations; (b) the public-law duties imposed on
administrators such as Medscheme by Regulation 15E (2); and (c) the
constitutional rights of access to healthcare and to lawful, reasonable and
constitutional rights of access to healthcare and to lawful, reasonable and
procedurally fair administrative action as guaranteed in sections 27 (1) and 33
of the Constitution.
9
[31] Medscheme's impugned decision of 5 October 2025 was taken in direct breach
of the above requirements. It introduced new sub-tiers within the Tier 3 network,
excluded the Melamed hospitals without notice or justification and reconfigured
the collective tariff structure contrary to the express terms of the RFP
Medscheme breached the protective purpose of Regulation 15E ·(2), which is to .
secure equality of treatment and transparent selection among healthcare
providers.
. .
We/I-grounded apprehension of harm •• •
[32] Melamed Mitchells Plain is the only acute hospital located in Mitchells Plain. By
excluding the applicant's hospitals from network participation, patients, scheme
beneficiaries and members would be compelled to seek care at acute hospitals
outside of Mitchells Plain. The nearest hospitals are a significant dist;mce away,
especially for persons with limited economic means who would typically be·
reliant on public transport. These hospitals are Mediclinic Louis Leipoldt is in
Bellville West. The travelling distance between Melamed Mitchells Plain and
Louis Loipoldt are at least 20 kilometers. Life Kingsbury is in Claremont. The
travelling distance between Melamed Mitchells Plains and Life Kingsbury is at
least 21 kilometers; and the decision of Medscheme to exclude Melamed from
network participation and tier 3 has a direct adverse effect. It is far reaching,
which neither the NHN nor Melamed will be able to mitigate, given that the RFP
has no 'revision' clause, scope, or provision in relation to an outcome.
[33] Secondly, patients, beneficiaries and members residing in the catchment area
where Melamed facilities are located will be severely affected as they may have
to make co-payments for hospital services and treatment because of the
exclusion, which limits patient access. This increases the out-of-pocket
expenses for financially constrained patients, scheme members and
beneficiaries. These patients, scheme members and beneficiaries would also
beneficiaries. These patients, scheme members and beneficiaries would also
be at a disadvantage as they must travel long distances by public transport and
put themselves at extra financial burden. Medscheme did not dispute these
facts except to state that the applicant was making assumptions.
10
Whether balance of convenience favours the applicant
[34] The balance of convenience favours the applicant; there is no harm to be
suffered the Med scheme. As stated above the medical aid members must travel
long distances at a cost to get medical assistance for the services available at
excluded hospitals of the applicant 's n etwork of hospitals. If the decision of
Medscheme which is meant to endure for a period of 3 years is left
unchallenged that will be a travesty of justice .
Absence of another remedy
[35) The applicant stated that it has no other remedy. M~dscheme 's submitted that
the applicant 's remedy is found in sections 47 and 4l3 of the MSA. The preamble
to the MSA provides :
"To consolidate the laws relating to registered medical schemes; to provide for the
establishment of the Council for Medical Schemes as a juristic person; to provide
for the appointment of the Registrar of Medical Schemes; to make provislon for the
registration and control of certain activities of medical schemes; to protect the
interests of members of medical schemes; to provide for measures for the co
ordination of medical schemes; and to provide for incidental matters."
[36] Medscheme argued that the applicant's remedy is to return to the negotiating
table . What Medscheme refuses to accept is that its decision of 5 October 2025
excluded the two hospitals of the applicant. Medscheme 's contention is not
correct , that the order sought by the applicant is not pragmatic . Should the
October Decision translate into a contractual arrangement by way of its
implementation on 1 January 2026, SAMWUMED members in the Gatesville
and Mitchells Plain communities will be deprived of access to the Melamed
hospitals in those areas, as the medical scheme to which they are contracted
will not be able to purchase medical services from those hospitals for those
beneficiaries.
[37] This is obvious from the fact that SAMWUMED members reside within this area,
[37] This is obvious from the fact that SAMWUMED members reside within this area,
and generally the inclusion of a hospital in a medical scheme's network is
crucial to ensure that those hospitals are accessible to the members of the
11
community who without assistance from the medical. schemes, would not
ordinarily be able to access medical assistance from those hospitals.
[38] Further submissions made on behalf of the applicants a·re as follows: the loss
of patients from these hospitals will automatically translate to a loss for the
medical practitioners who are located within the Melamed hospitals. This, too,
is an obvious conclusion, because in any competitive market, the loss of a
customer base that previously existed in respect of a particular hospital for a
three-year period will inevitably result in attrition from that hospital.
[39] Similarly, the fact that the Melamed hospitals are not included in the .
SAMWUMED network may result in the loss of opportu.~ity in that new medical
practitioners would opt not to start their .practices in.· fnese hospitals, as certain
patients would not be able to access their services ~ue to the exclusion of the
hospitals from the SAMWUMED network.
[40] In addition, Medscheme submitted that the applicant must lodge a complaint in
terms of sections 47 .and 48 the MSA. Section 47 (1) of MSA reads as follows:
"The Registrar shall, where a written complaint in relation to any matter provided
for in this Act_ has been lodged with the Council, furnish the party complained
against with full particulars of the complaint and request such party to furnish the
Registrar with his or her written comments thereon within 30 days or such further
period as the Registrar may allow."
(41] Section 47(2) of the MSA reads as follows:
"The Registrar shall, as soon as possible after receipt of any comments furnished
to him or her as contemplated in subsection (1 }, either resolve the matter or submit
the complaint together with such comments, if any, to the Council, and the Council
shall thereupon take all such steps as it may deem• necessary to resolve the
complaint."
[42] Section 48 (1) of the MSA makes provision for an appeal against a decision
made under section 47. It reads as follows:
made under section 47. It reads as follows:
"Any person who is aggrieved by any decision relating to the settlement of a
complaint or dispute may appeal against such decision to the Council."
12
•
Discussion
[43] The decision is challenged under the RFP on the assumption that it is purely a
private contractual power, alternatively under PAJA and or principle of legality.
The decision under the RFP constitutes the exercise of public power. As a
result, this application also constitutes a review application in terms of PAJA
and, in the alternative, a review in terms of the principle of legality in terms of
which the applicant seeks to vindicate the constitutional right to just and fair
administrative action as contemplated in section 33 of the Constitution.
[44] Medscheme's argument is that there is nothing to interdict because the
applicant had rejected both decisions, i.e., that of 18 September 2025 and that
of 5 October 2025. The applicant's response on 23 September 2025 to the
letter/ award of 18 September 2025 was a plea for additional hospitals in the
applicant's network of hospitals, not a rejection at all. Secondly the 5th October
2025 letter which without reasons changed the decisions of 18 September 2025
was never rejected too. Instead, the applicants addressed a letter on 6 October
2025 to Medscheme requesting it to share tools as early as 21 October 2025 to
avoid delays leading to 1 January 2026, the date of implementation.
[45) The practicality of the interdict is to restore Melamed Mitcheils Plain and
Melamed Gatesville to the tier 2 and/or 3 as fillers as was the position on 18
September 2025. There is nowhere in the letter of 23 September 2023 where
applicant is rejecting the appointment of these two hospitals. Also, in the
applicant's letter of 6 October 2026, there is nowhere the applicant is rejecting
anything except to reiterate its commitment to the assessment and watchlist
policies of Medscheme.
[46] Medscheme's interpretation of the letters of the applicant is flawed in all
respects. Section 33 of the Constitution guarantees th~ right to just
administrative action, meaning that everyone is entitled to action that is lawful,
administrative action, meaning that everyone is entitled to action that is lawful,
reasonable, and procedurally fair. It also ensures that anyone whose rights are
affected by administrative action has the right to receive written reasons for that
decision. The bottom line is that when the applicant pleaded for the appointment
13
of additional hospitals on its 23 September 2025, the appliGant was ".)~t with an
unfair, arbitrary reasonless decision.
(47) Furthermore, Me~scheme's argument that the applic~nt's remedy is· to return
to the negotiating table is contrary to Medscheme's argument that the RFP was
not a tender, thus no contract or contractual relationship had come into
existence. Medscheme further submits contractual relationship can only arise
once (and if) the negotiated outcome has been reduced to writing in a formal
contract signed by both parties. This is not correct; it is trite that contracts can
be binding even if not reduced in writing except for few, i.e. alienation of land,
suretyship etc.4
[48] The argument also ignores that the two hospitals will not be part of that
negotiation and there will be nothing stopping Medscheme from implementing
its decision of 5 October 2025. Should the October Decision translate into a
contractual arrangement by way of its implementation on 1 January 2026,
SAMWUMED in the Gatesville and Mitchells Plain communities will be deprived
of access to the Melamed hospitals in those areas.
[49] Medscheme did not dispute that SAMWUMED patients are being ~ctively
ferried away with the transport organised by SAMWUMED from the Melamed
hospitals to other network hospitals in the Cape Metro area. This is exactly the
applicant's fear. That once these patients develop relationships with the
medical professionals at those network hospitals over the three year -contract
period, the possibility of these patients ever returning to the Melamed hospitals
is slim.
[50] Finally, Medscheme's submission that the applicant must comply wi:th sections ~- . -~·. 47 and 48 of MSA disregards the urgency created by Medschl!me. This .,.
considers the times lines prescribed or not in these sections. In terni~ -~f section
47 the earliest the complaint can be attended to is within a period "Qt.30 days. •
In terms of section 48 there is no prescribed time against the outcbmes of the
In terms of section 48 there is no prescribed time against the outcbmes of the
4 See lmbuko Wines (Ply) Ltd v Reference Audio CC [2022] ZASCA 110.
14 •
appeal against section 47. By all accounts at that time the applicant is tied up
in all these processes the 1st of January 2026 would have come and gone.
Conclusion
[51) The 5 October 2025 decision was an amendment to the 18 September 2025
decision . It was made in violation of Regulation 1 SE of the MSA Regulations. It
is a decision meant to endure for a period of 3 years, if left unchallenged that
will be a travesty of justice. Therefore, it must be set aside.
Order
[52] In the result, the following order is granted:
1. This application is heard as one of urgency and the applicant's non
compliance with the ordinary rules of court relating to time periods, form
and service is condoned in terms of Rule 6(12).
2. Pending the final determination of Part 8 of this application, the respondents
are interdicted from implementing the RFP outcome issued by Medscheme
on 5 October 2025, which excluded the Melamed Gatesville and Mitchell's
Plain hospitals from the SAMWUMED sub-tier under tier 3.
3. The respondents are liable for the costs of this application, including the
costs of two counsel, taxed on a party-and~party scale at scale
Heard on:
Delivered on:
27 November 2025
December 2025
PMALI
IG COURT
JOHANNESBURG
15
Appearances:
For the Applicant:
Instructed by:
For the Respondents :
Instructed by:
Adv N. Ferreira and Adv S. Muhamed
Bouwer Cardona Incorporated
(011) 759 0940
Adv Lamplough SC and Adv P. Maharaj-Pillay _
Wersksmans Attorneys
(011) 535 8198
16