Mapholisa N O v Phetoe N O and Others

Mr Meshack Mapholisa, acting in his official capacity as a pro forma complainant appointed under the Health Professions Act 56 of 1974, sought to review a decision of the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) of the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA). A complaint of unprofessional conduct had been lodged by Ms Malinda Miller against Dr Percy Miller relating to the treatment of Ms Violet Senna. The PCC upheld a point in limine raised by Dr Miller, finding that Ms Miller lacked locus standi as she was not the patient and could not give admissible evidence. Mr Mapholisa applied to the Gauteng Division of the High Court to review and set aside this decision. The High Court dismissed the application on the basis that Mr Mapholisa had failed to exhaust an internal appeal remedy under the regulations as required by s 7(2) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA), and also agreed with the PCC on locus standi. Mr Mapholisa then sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The High Court’s order was set aside. The PCC’s decision of 3 July 2017 upholding the point in limine was reviewed and set aside and substituted with an order dismissing the point in limine. Dr Percy Miller was directed to pay the applicant’s costs.

The case clarifies that PAJA generally does not apply to reviews brought by organs of state against other organs of state acting in their official capacities, confirming that such reviews proceed under the principle of legality. It further affirms the common-law position that exhaustion of internal remedies is not required in legality reviews unless mandated by statute. In the context of professional discipline, the judgment confirms a broad interpretation of who may lodge complaints with the HPCSA, reinforcing public-interest oversight of health professionals.