South African Health Products Regulatory Authority and Another v African Christian Democratic Party

The African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) applied in the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria, for orders directing the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) to remove restrictions on the use of Ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19 in humans. The matter was settled together with three similar applications, and the parties agreed to a draft order. Despite this settlement, the High Court (Sardiwalla J) mero motu included a supervisory order requiring SAHPRA to report to court every three months and allowing parties to approach the court on aspects relating to the Ivermectin programme. SAHPRA and the Minister of Health had objected to this supervisory order, requested a hearing, and filed heads of argument, but the court granted the order without hearing the parties and without providing reasons addressing the supervisory order. SAHPRA and the Minister sought rescission or leave to appeal, which was granted, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld and paragraphs 1 and 2 of the High Court’s order (the supervisory order) were set aside. No order as to costs was made.

The case reaffirms foundational principles of South African civil procedure and constitutional law, including the limits of judicial power, the adversarial nature of litigation, and the right to a fair public hearing. It underscores that courts may not grant relief not sought by the parties, may not decide issues not pleaded, and must hear affected parties before making adverse orders. The judgment provides important guidance on the proper and limited use of supervisory orders, particularly in matters implicating the separation of powers.