Nonkululo Dastile v The Superintendent General for the Department of Health, Eastern Cape

The applicant had previously obtained a default court order under the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 (PAIA) compelling the respondent to furnish certain medical records allegedly held by Stutterheim Hospital. The order was granted on 8 October 2024 in the applicant’s PAIA application after the matter was enrolled without proper detail or adequate notice to the State Attorney. Alleging non-compliance with that order, the applicant launched a separate application for contempt of court. The contempt application was enrolled on the unopposed roll despite service having occurred during the court recess and without allowing the respondent and the State Attorney the full dies to respond. The court further found that the original PAIA order was vague, contained factual errors (including the applicant’s gender), lacked identifying details of the records and hospital concerned, and purported to compel the production of documents not yet in existence, such as a completed RAF 1 form.

The application for contempt of court was dismissed. No order as to costs was made.

The judgment underscores the procedural rigour required in PAIA litigation and contempt proceedings against organs of state. It highlights the importance of properly identifying records, complying with service and notice requirements (especially involving the State Attorney), and ensuring that court orders are clear, accurate, and capable of compliance. The case cautions against the misuse of PAIA to compel the creation of documents and against treating contempt proceedings as a routine sequel to defective PAIA orders.