Compcare Wellness Medical Scheme v Registrar of Medical Schemes and Others

Compcare Wellness Medical Scheme applied to the Registrar of Medical Schemes for approval to change its name to 'Universal Medical Scheme'. The Registrar refused the application on the basis that the proposed name was likely to mislead the public, contrary to section 23(1)(c) of the Medical Schemes Act 131 of 1998. This refusal was upheld by an appeal committee of the Council for Medical Schemes. On further appeal, the Appeal Board set aside the Registrar’s decision and ordered approval of the name change subject to conditions intended to mitigate potential public confusion. The Registrar and the Council then approached the Gauteng Division of the High Court to review and set aside the Appeal Board’s decision. The High Court granted the review, and Compcare appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel. The High Court order setting aside the Appeal Board’s decision remained in force.

The case clarifies that organs of state may invoke PAJA when acting in the public interest under section 38(d) of the Constitution, even when challenging decisions of other organs of state. Substantively, it affirms the strict application of legality in administrative law by confirming that statutory prohibitions admit of no discretion unless expressly provided. The judgment is significant for the regulation of medical schemes and for administrative decision-makers who may not cure statutory prohibitions through conditions.