Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii

[1]        The applicants challenge the constitutionality of the Certificate of Need (CON) scheme introduced in sections 36 to 40 of the National Health Act[1] (NHA). The applicants seek an order declaring that those sections are unconstitutional and invalid in their entirety and ought to be severed from the NHA.

[2]         The first, second and third applicants are organizations that represent private medical practitioners.  The fourth to eighth applicants are healthcare providers and the owners of healthcare establishments. Such healthcare establishments include private hospitals, pharmacies, clinics and private rooms set up by any healthcare provider, even if the rooms are private and within the home of the healthcare provider.  The applicants are all directly affected by the CON scheme and make common cause with each other in the present matter. The applicants, besides all acting in their own respective interests as persons affected by the CON scheme also act in the wider interests of all persons who will be subjected to the scheme if implemented.[2]

[3]         The first and third respondents are the parties under whose aegis the NHA and the implementation of the CON scheme fall.   They too make common cause with each other in the present matter.  The second respondent was cited by virtue of the fact that he has the power to proclaim the commencement of the relevant sections of the NHA, but he has taken no part in these proceedings.