Background of the Case
In April 2020, Khuthadzo Witness Daswa said he was injured while working on Coca‑Cola’s premises in Polokwane. He later filed a civil lawsuit against the company, asking for money to cover his medical bills and other damages.
What Coca‑Cola Needed
Coca‑Cola argued that the medical reports Daswa had already shared did not give enough detail about his treatment, future care needs, or the full basis for his compensation claim. The company said its own medical experts could not properly evaluate the injury without seeing the complete records from the health providers who treated him.
Attempts to Get the Records
Coca‑Cola first tried to obtain the records directly from the clinics, including Life Health Solutions. The facilities told them they needed Daswa’s written consent or a court subpoena before releasing any information. In May 2024, the company sent several written requests asking Daswa to sign consent forms, but he refused.
Daswa’s Objections
Daswa said the request was:
- Legally baseless
- A violation of his right to privacy
- Just a “fishing trip” to get more information than needed
- Unnecessary because he had already disclosed all documents he intended to use at trial
- A delay tactic meant to slow down the case
He also argued that forcing him to share his medical records would break several South African laws that protect personal health information, including the National Health Act, the Promotion of Access to Information Act, and the Protection of Personal Information Act.
The Court’s Reasoning
Judge Karin Leanne Pillay looked at both sides. She acknowledged that everyone has a constitutional right to privacy, especially when it comes to medical information. However, she said the court must also protect the right to a fair trial.
The judge found that the medical records were central to Daswa’s claim for compensation. Without them, Coca‑Cola could not properly prepare its defence or decide whether to settle or continue fighting the case. Daswa’s refusal to sign the consent forms was seen as unreasonable and harmful to the company’s ability to defend itself.
Judge Pillay stated that Daswa’s arguments about privilege and consent were inconsistent with due process. The records were relevant and necessary for Coca‑Cola’s defence, so the refusal to consent was unjustified.
Court Order
The court granted Coca‑Cola’s motion and ordered Daswa to sign the consent forms that would allow the company to obtain his full medical records from the health providers who treated him after the April 2020 incident. Daswa was also ordered to pay the legal costs of the application.
Conclusion
This ruling shows how courts try to balance an individual’s privacy rights with the need for a fair legal process. While protecting personal health information is important, the court decided that in this case, sharing the full medical records was necessary for Coca‑Cola to properly defend itself against the injury claim. The decision highlights that refusing to provide relevant evidence can be seen as obstructing justice, even when privacy concerns are raised.
