Gauteng High Court ruling delays critical cancer treatment for patients

The Cancer Alliance and SECTION27 express deep disappointment after the Johannesburg High Court’s ruling delays oncology services for cancer patients. The Cancer Alliance and SECTION27 have expressed disappointment following a judgment delivered by the Johannesburg High Court on Monday, which set aside an earlier order compelling the Gauteng Department of Health (GDoH) to act urgently on radiation oncology backlogs. According to the organisations, the court upheld an appeal brought by the department and set aside the order handed down by Judge Dippenaar.

e court upheld an appeal brought by the department and set aside the order handed down by Judge Dippenaar. The matter stems from a March 2025 judgment by Van Nieuwenhuizen AJ, which held that the Gauteng provincial health respondents must“update the backlog list of patients awaiting radiation oncology services, provide radiation oncology services to patients awaiting radiation and report to the court on their progress.” “update the backlog list of patients awaiting radiation oncology services, provide radiation oncology services to patients awaiting radiation and report to the court on their progress.” That order was automatically suspended when the GDoH was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA). Because of the urgency, Cancer Alliance and SECTION27 approached the High Court again in August 2025, seeking an order under section 18(2) or (3) of the Superior Courts Act to force compliance despite the pending appeal before the SCA.

Judge Dippenaar ruled in their favour, meaning the health department was again compelledto follow the March 2025 judgment and update the backlog list, provide radiation oncology services to patients on the backlog list and report progress to the court. to follow the March 2025 judgment and update the backlog list, provide radiation oncology services to patients on the backlog list and report progress to the court. The provincial health department appealed this order on October 7. In Monday’s ruling, the court found that Judge Dippenaar“erred in finding that there were exceptional circumstances which warrant immediate execution of the order.” “erred in finding that there were exceptional circumstances which warrant immediate execution of the order.”