Soobramoney v Minister of Health (KwaZulu-Natal)

The appellant, a 41-year-old unemployed man suffering from irreversible chronic renal failure, sought ongoing renal dialysis treatment from Addington State Hospital in Durban. The hospital had limited dialysis resources and applied guidelines prioritising patients eligible for kidney transplants. Because the appellant suffered from ischaemic heart disease and cerebro-vascular disease, he was not eligible for a transplant and was therefore excluded from the dialysis programme. After exhausting his finances on private treatment, he approached the High Court and then the Constitutional Court, claiming that refusal of dialysis violated his constitutional rights to emergency medical treatment (section 27(3)) and to life (section 11).

The appeal was dismissed. The refusal to provide the appellant with dialysis treatment at a state hospital was upheld.

This was the Constitutional Court's first major socio-economic rights case and it set important limits on the enforceability of the right to health care. It clarified the meaning of 'emergency medical treatment' and confirmed that socio-economic rights are subject to resource constraints and rational prioritisation, shaping later jurisprudence such as Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom.