South Africa: Judgment By The Constitutional Court In Respect Of The Medicine Pricing Regulations: A Recipe (Perhaps)?

Last Updated: 2 November 2005
Article by Neil Kirby

There has been much comment in the media following the judgment by the Constitutional Court on medicine pricing. The judgment was decided on 30 September 2005 and during October 2005 newspapers, magazines and the Internet have been inundated with commentary and analysis concerning the effects of the Constitutional Court's judgment.

Much of what has been stated concerns, I suppose what people usually worry about when it comes to a judgment, who won? The question is misconceived in so far as medicine pricing was never about any of the parties who ultimately went to court. Medicine pricing, as a component of the national health policy in South Africa, was designed to benefit the consumer. Therefore, the question is whether or not the man and woman in the street won in relation to medicine pricing. The answer to this question is determined with reference to whether or not the man and woman in the street is, as a result of the judgment, going to be paying less for medicine?

The effect of the Constitutional Court judgment is that prescribed dispensing fees, which were to be charged by pharmacists for the purposes of dispensing medicine, were held by the Court to be not "appropriate". This is the only aspect that was removed in its entirety from the medicine pricing regulations ("the regulations"). In effect, the prescribed dispensing fee, which previously existed in the regulations, was removed and replaced with the individual pharmacist's discretion in so far as he or she wishes to charge a dispensing fee for rendering his or her professional services. What is not reported in the press, with any degree of conviction, is the Court's statement that: "[it] holds unanimously that the challenge to the regulations overall must fail and that the [Supreme Court of Appeal] was accordingly wrong in setting aside the regulations as a whole."

Importantly, the Court went out of its way to preserve as much of the regulations as it was able. It did so by exercising its powers to amend the wording of the regulations in certain respects so as to align the regulations with the provisions of section 22G of the Medicines & Related Substances Act No. 101 of 1965, as amended, which gives the Minister of Health the power to promulgate the regulations and bring them into law.

What then remains, once the Court furnished its de- and re-construction, is a system of regulating the pricing of medicines and not the dispensing of them. Therefore, the concept of a "single exit price", which is applicable to all medicines in the country but for Schedule 0 medicines that are exempted by the Minister of Health, remains applicable:

"Wholesalers, distributors and retailers may not sell medicine at a price higher than the single exit price. Wholesalers and distributors may charge only an agreed logistics fee subject to the controls imposed by the regulations. That is a coherent system, consistent with the Medicines Act, that gives effect to the main object of section 22G."

The Court therefore endeavours to expose the regulations to a legal analysis in order to ensure that the regulations pass constitutional muster and remain part of South African law. This, the court holds, is consistent with the objectives employed by the Medicines Act in order to ensure that medicines become more affordable for the public at large:

"In this regard, it should be emphasized that the regulations seek to introduce a new scheme with the purpose of enhancing access to affordable medicines, a goal to which all the parties to this dispute subscribe and which is in the interest of all consumers of medicine. For this goal to be achieved, the co-operation of all interested parties in both its establishment and implementation is required. Interested parties should therefore provide any information required by the Pricing Committee or the Minister as fully and timeously as possible."

The effect therefore of the judgment is that new regulations must be published within sixty days of the judgment being delivered.

The majority judgment was handed down by his Lordship Mr Justice Chaskalson. The Court was concerned primarily with two issues: the role of administrative justice in relation to the regulations and the constitutionality of the regulations.

The basis upon which the court decided that the dispensing fee, prescribed by the regulations, is "not appropriate" is based on the principle of reasonableness. In so far as decisions by administrators, in case the Minister of Health and the Pricing Committee, are concerned, these decisions must be made in an acceptable way. Chaskalson CJ states that in so far as the dispensing fee is "appropriate", it will then be reasonable within the meaning of the phrase used in the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act No. 3 of 2000 ("the PAJA"). The PAJA requires all administrative action to be reasonable. The dispensing fee was found to be "not appropriate" as it was unreasonable and contravened the provisions of the PAJA. Close examination by the Court of the issue of a dispensing fee, in the light of the prevailing principles of South African administrative law as cast in terms of the PAJA, resulted in the finding that the dispensing fee was "not appropriate". The approach by the Court is a useful recipe that should be followed, during the process that is to occur within the sixty days following the judgment, for the purposes of revising the regulations.

The starting point for the recipe is section 27 of the Constitution, 1996. Section 27 guarantees to all South Africans the right to access of reasonable healthcare services including reproductive healthcare services. The court re-states this as an obligation of the State that, in terms of section 27 of the Constitution, obliges the State to take reasonable measures to enhance access to healthcare. The Court then relates section 27 directly to section 22G of the Medicines Act, stating that "[s]ection 22G requires the measures taken to achieve this end to be 'appropriate'. The cost of medicine is relevant to accessibility, but it is not the only factor. The medicine must be available to those who require it. Pharmacies are an essential component of the distribution chain. If pharmacies go out of business the accessibility of medicines will be impaired. An appropriate fee is thus one which at least strikes a balance between these requirements of cost and availability." This appears to be the formula for reaching or determining an appropriate dispensing fee. Even after all the representations are made again and the information is re-read, re-examined and received, re-analysed and unpacked once again, the formulation of an appropriate dispensing fee will and must ultimately be based on a formula that demonstratively "strikes a balance between" the requirements of section 27 of the Constitution, essentially, and "cost and availability". The two competing interests therefore are those of the public, in so far as it is able to access affordable medicines, and the financial, long-term viability of pharmacies.

The Court then examined the expert evidence contained in the papers. In its comments, the Court points to the second part of the recipe. This part of the recipe requires the powers that be to consider that "the only way that compounding and admixing can be dealt with, if regard is had to the provisions and purpose of the Medicines Act, is to treat these functions as being an aspect of the dispensing function for which special provision has to be made in addition to the basic 'dispensing fee'. And this, the regulations fail to do. This omission is a factor relevant to the issue of the appropriateness of the dispensing fee." Clearly therefore, any revision of an appropriate dispensing fee must include aspects concerning compounding and admixing as well as any other professional services rendered by a pharmacist when dispensing medicine.

The third part of the recipe is a recognition of the distinction amongst four groupings of pharmacies: community pharmacies, hospital pharmacies, rural pharmacies and courier pharmacies. This is not the legal distinction that is drawn in the regulations promulgated in terms of the Pharmacy Act No. 53 of 1974. The distinct categories recognised by the Court all play a particular role in the provision of medicines to the public at large. Bearing in mind, that the accessibility of medicines is a battle fought mostly in under-serviced rural areas, the ability of courier and rural pharmacies to fulfil the role of the accessibility of medicine becomes important.

Whilst there are a number of judgments that are published, which form the whole of the judgment by the Court, there is consistency in the judgments recognising the four categories of pharmacies to which I have already referred. Therefore, this recognition may require the Pricing Committee to examine whether or not it is indeed feasible to apply one dispensing fee to all pharmacies irrespective of their location and the particular role that they play in promoting the accessibility of medicine. The idea is not to make dispensing fees uniform and apply them to all pharmacies irrespective of the nature of the pharmacy concerned but to take into consideration the context the role that a particular pharmacy plays in a particular community in relation to the making available medicines to the community it serves. Whilst the Court makes no comment on what the dispensing fee should be in respect of courier or rural pharmacies or how that fee should be established, the Court does say that the representations that were made to the Pricing Committee concerning the distinctions that it should draw in the compilation of a dispensing fee were not heeded. In this regard, the Court states that: [t]here is nothing to show that the concerns expressed by the Pharmacies at the oral hearings or the information provided by them at the hearings was taken into account by the Pricing Committee." Listening to people is an important component of administrative justice. Taking into account what is said, how it is said and what information is used to support what is said, form an integral component of what ultimately amounts to procedurally fair administrative justice for the purposes of South African law:

"'Accountability, responsiveness and openness' on the part of government are foundational values of our Constitution. An allegation has been made by professional organisations representing pharmacists that the dispensing fee will destroy the viability of pharmacies, and impair access to health care. That allegation is supported by a sufficient body of evidence to show that this is a real possibility. In the circumstances the applicants were under an obligation to explain how they satisfied themselves that this would not be the result of the dispensing fee prescribed in the regulations. They were the only persons who could provide this information. They did not, however, do so. Absent such explanation, there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the dispensing fee is not appropriate."

The result is that the Pricing Committee did not listen and consequently could not explain, in light of what it was supposed to have heard, why it imposed the dispensing fee that it did. This may be the most important part of the recipe: to listen. In so far as a public body invites comments from the public, in relation to the formulation of a law, albeit in the form of a regulation or a recommendation, then the public body must listen to the representations that are made. Now that the Pricing Committee has been granted a reprieve, in so far as it has been requested to re-consider the issue of a dispensing fee, it may be worth its while not only to listen but to read: the judgment by the Court is, with respect, well considered and operates almost as an instruction manual to the Pricing Committee for the purposes of getting it right this time. The evaluation of the expert evidence by the Court, more particularly in paragraphs 389 to 403, is instructional, at least, in relation to what it is that the Pricing Committee should be doing when re-formulating an appropriate dispensing fee.

The single exit pricing of medicine remains part of our law and always will. The formulation of a single exit price for medicine may reduce the price of medicine in the hands of the consumer. Bear in mind, however, that the single exit price of a medicine is not what you will be paying when you buy your medicine in a pharmacy. You will be in a position to assess whether or not you have been charged a single exit price but, in addition to the single exit price, you will be charged additional fees by the pharmacist for the various professional components that he or she has employed in dispensing that medicine to you. In so far as most manufacturers, wholesalers and distributors of medicines in this country have already adopted the single exit price, and the Minister has already commented that medicines are becoming cheaper, the ultimate commercial and practical effect on your pocket may not be all that it is promised to be and cheaper medicines may ultimately remain more an idea of law than a function of commerce.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions