Mistry v Interim National Medical and Dental Council of South Africa and Others

The applicant, a registered medical practitioner, was the subject of a complaint alleging fraudulent claims to a medical aid. Acting on the complaint, officials of the Interim National Medical and Dental Council inspected his medical practice. Information from that inspection was shared with an inspector appointed under the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act 101 of 1965, who, without a warrant, entered and searched the applicant’s surgery and seized medicines, documents and other items in terms of section 28(1) of the Medicines Act. The applicant approached the High Court for the return of the seized items and for a referral to the Constitutional Court, challenging the constitutionality of section 28(1). The High Court ordered the return of some items, refused the return of others, and referred the constitutional issue to the Constitutional Court. The applicant appealed against the refusal to order the return of all items.

Section 28(1) of the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act 101 of 1965 was declared unconstitutional and invalid. The appeal succeeded, and the respondents were ordered to return the items seized from the applicant that were still in their possession.

This case is a leading South African authority on the constitutional limits of warrantless search and seizure powers. It affirms that even in the context of regulatory inspections aimed at protecting public health, legislation must contain adequate safeguards to protect the right to privacy. The judgment played a foundational role in shaping constitutional jurisprudence on privacy, proportionality, and the requirement of judicial oversight in search-and-seizure regimes.