November, the eve of the hearing before this court, the judge president gave The court on the merits, and the respondents were to file any affidavits In terms of s 21(3)(c)(ii) of the Supreme CourtĪct 59 of 1959, the parties were to be prepared (if called upon to do so) to The ruling was in the customaryĪpplications was consolidated, the applications were referred for oral argument With the head of court and the members of the panel to whom the applications The ruling was issued early the next morning after consultation Of the respondents the meeting took place on 17 November, two days later than Under delegated powers to issue the necessary directions in terms of SCA rule 11Īs to the manner in which the applications In the meantime and pursuant to the filing of the presentĪpplications I had invited the parties to a conference in chambers to If there were compelling reasons for the delay, one would Indication of when judgment was to be delivered was given and no explanation Process and dispense with the need to finalise the judgment. Of them whether, in the light of the applications, The second draft of the judgment was in the process of being typed. The next day the judge president became available for theĬourtesy call and, according to the state attorney, he told those present President to inform him in advance but he was unable – for unknown reasons They intended as a gesture of courtesy to meet with the judge Thereafter decided to file the present applications Neither the registrar nor the judge president Some five weeks later, on 20 October, the applicants in the PSSAĪpplication wrote to the registrar of the court below, with aĮstablish whether the judge president, who had intimated at the hearing that he The practice in matters of this kind, the court reserved judgment. The applications were eventuallyīut instead of making an ex tempore order, as is The applicants then requested an early hearingĭate had to suit respondents’ counsel. These notices did not raise any issues not covered by the two judgments. The urgency, the applicants immediately sought leave to appealįrom the court below by filing their applications on the next courtĪugust. Review applications (which brought the suspension of the regulations to an end) Judgment was delivered on 27Īugust and the applications were dismissed (per Heard by a full bench as a court of first instance. At the behest of the respondentsĮarly hearing dates were allocated, namely 17 and 18 June. Regulations were suspended pending the final determination of the reviews andįor filing papers. To the urgency of the matters, the court granted In separate review applications, applied in the Cape High Court for the setting Treatment Action Campaign joined the proceedings as Second, Prof D McIntyre, cited in the court below under uniform rule 53 inĬapacity as chairperson of the pricing committee. The other is by New Clicks SA (Pty) Ltd, the owner of 86 pharmacies.īoth applications are first, the Minister of Health and In one the first applicant is the Pharmaceutical Society of The regulation of the single exit price is legal. The major issues are whether these fees are ‘appropriate’ and If there is a prescription the figures are 26%Īnd R26 (if more than R100, whether R100 or R1000). Pricing system that defines and controls the single exit price for manufacturersĪnd importers and for a dispensing fee, which, for pharmacists amounts to eitherġ6% of the exit price (if it is less than R100) The regulations under attack provide for a Health professionals may, however, add the prescribed ‘appropriateīut no more. Must publish their ‘single exit price’ no one in the supply chain Obliged to charge the same price to all discounts are prohibited Of medicines and may prescribe a dispensing fee. Regulations may, essentially, provide for a transparent pricing system for The section permits the minister to make regulations on theĬommittee established by the section. Promulgated on 30 April 2004 by the Minister of Health in terms of s 22G of theĪct’). Pricing System for Medicines and Scheduled In issue is the validity of the ‘Regulations relating to a Validity – legality ( ultra vires) – Leave to appeal –įailure of court of first instance to make order within reasonable time – Transparent Pricing System for Medicines and Scheduled Subject: Medicines and Related Substances Act – Regulations relating to a NEW CLICKS SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LIMITED AppellantĬoram: HARMS, NAVSA, MTHIYANE, BRAND and CLOETE JJA Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa and Others v Minister of Health and Another New Clicks South Africa (Pty) Limited v Tshabalala-Msimang NO and Another (542/2004, 543/2004) ZASCA 122 (20 December 2004)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |