CFI Findings

The South African Pharmacy Council (SAPC) actively safeguards the public’s right to quality pharmaceutical care and upholds the reputation of the pharmacy profession by investigating complaints of unprofessional behaviour by registered individuals. Disciplinary action is taken against those who endanger public health or harm the profession’s reputation. In accordance with Regulation 26 of the Regulations on inquiries under Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, the SAPC is obliged to regularly publish any sanctions imposed by a Committee of Formal Inquiry.

The Committee of Formal Inquiry acts against unprofessional conduct

The SAPC is mandated by legislation to protect the public’s right to access quality pharmaceutical care and to maintain the integrity of the pharmacy profession. The Committee of Formal Inquiry exists to achieve this by investigating alleged misconduct by pharmacy professionals and premises owners, and by imposing various penalties on those found guilty of misconduct. These penalties can include a fine and/or suspension from practice, or complete deregistration from the registers of Council.

In terms of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, in particular Regulation 26, respondents who are found guilty by a Committee of Formal Inquiry (CFI) shall have their names, along with a summary of the charges and the penalty imposed by the CFI, published in a Council report.

Findings of the Committee of Formal Inquiry

Ms Chantelle Diamond (P22525)

Ms Diamond, a Responsible Pharmacist, was found guilty of the following charges:

1. Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
2. In terms of Rule 18 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by allowing an unregistered and unqualified person into the dispensary to perform acts of a pharmacist.
3. In terms of Regulation 39 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 0f 1965, by keeping pre-packed flu-cocktail, mixture of various painkillers, anti-inflammatory and flu medicines in one container.
4. In terms of Regulation 35 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to keep a register of schedule 1 and 2 medicines.

The CFI sentenced Ms Diamond in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to a fine of R25 000, of which R5 000 is suspended for a period of twelve (12) months on condition that she is not found guilty of the same or similar offences during the period of suspension, as well as a cost order of R12 785,11.

Ms Lulama Qwele (P27543)

Ms Qwele, a pharmacist, was found guilty of the following charges:

1. Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
2. In terms of Rule 18 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by allowing an unregistered person access to schedule medicines and/or dispensing Allergex to a patient.
3. In terms of Regulation 22 of the Regulations relating to the practice of a pharmacy, by operating a pharmacy without a pharmacist on the premises.
4. In terms of Regulation 39 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, in that the repacking of medicine was not carried out in accordance with Good Manufacturing Practice.
5. In terms of Regulation 10 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to label Prednisone in accordance with Regulations.
6. In terms of Regulation 35 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to record Schedule 1 and 2 purchases and sales in a prescription book or other permanent record.
7. In terms of Section 22A(5)(b) of the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by dispensing scheduled medicines without a doctor’s prescription.
8. In terms of Regulation 36 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to store Schedule 6 medicines in a designated place which is under lock and key.
9. In terms of Rule 2.7.3.9 of the Good Pharmacy Practice by having expired medicines.

The CFI sentenced Ms Qwele in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to be suspended from practising as a pharmacist for three (3) years. A cost order of R12 785,11 was imposed.

MR KADIATA ADRIEN WAKADIATA (P68788)

Mr Wakadiata, a pharmacist’s assistant (Learner Basic), was found guilty in terms of Rule 10 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by conducting himself in a manner that harms the dignity or honour of the profession.

The CFI sentenced Mr Wakadiata in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to a fine of R5 000 and no cost order was imposed.

MR DUMISANI MKHABELA (P62260)

Mr Mkhabela, a Pharmacist’s Assistant (Post-Basic), was found guilty in Rule 10 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by conducting himself in a manner that harms the dignity or honour of the profession.

The CFI sentenced Mr Mkhabela in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to a fine of R5 000 of which is wholly suspended for a period of twelve (12) months on condition that the Respondent is not found guilty of the same or similar offences during the period of suspension. No cost order was imposed.

MS LESUFI MADIGOE (P38150)

Ms Madigoe, a Responsible Pharmacist, was found guilty of the following charges:

1. Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
2. In terms of Regulation 22 of the Regulations relating to the practice of a pharmacy, by operating a pharmacy without a pharmacist on the premises.
3. In terms of Rule 18 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by allowing an unregistered and unqualified person into the dispensary to perform acts of a pharmacist.
4. In terms of Rule 18 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by failing to supervise the support staff.

The CFI sentenced Ms Madigoe in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to a fine of R42 500, of which R26 000 is suspended for a period of twelve (12) months on condition that she is not found guilty of the same or similar offences during the period of suspension, as well as a cost order of R12 785,11.

MS SIKHULILE BLESSED THEMBA (P69666)

Ms Themba, a pharmacist’s assistant (Learner Basic), was found guilty of the following:

1. In terms of Rule 18 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by talking during a summative assessment, copying a tutor guide and handing in colour copies of someone else’s work.

The CFI sentenced Ms Themba in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to a fine of R10 000, which fine is wholly suspended for a period of 24 months on condition that the Respondent is not found guilty of the same or similar offence during the period of suspension. No cost order was imposed.

MR KS NTHITHE DB429169

Mr Nthithe, an owner, was found guilty of the following:

1. Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
2. In terms of Regulation 22 of the Regulations relating to the practice of a pharmacy, by operating a pharmacy without a pharmacist on the premises.
3. In terms of Section 22(5) of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, by operating a pharmacy without a registered Responsible Pharmacist.
4. In terms of Rule 18 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by allowing unregistered persons to have access to schedule medicine and/or perform acts pertaining to the scope of practice of a pharmacist.
5. In terms of Regulation 36 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to keep an up-to-date register of all schedule 6 purchases and sales.

The CFI sentenced Mr Nthithe in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to a fine of R65 000 and a cost order in the amount of R12 785,11.

MR RHULANI GIVEN MALULEKE (P07803)

Mr Maluleke, a Responsible Pharmacist and owner, was found guilty of the following:

1. Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
2. In terms of Section 22(4)(5) of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, by failing to register a Responsible Pharmacist with the South African Pharmacy Council.
3. In terms of Regulation 39 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by not following correct procedures for pre-packaging.
4. In terms of Regulation 10(5) and 10(6) of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to label medicines in accordance with relevant regulations.
5. In terms of Regulation 35(1) to 35(3) of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to record all schedules 1 to 6 medicines sales in a prescription book or other permanent record.

The CFI sentenced Mr Maluleke in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to a fine of R35 000, of which fine R12 500 is suspended for a period of 12 months on condition that the Respondent is not found guilty of the same or similar offence during the period of suspension. A cost order of R12 785,11 was imposed.

MR SM NDLOVU (DB456021)

Mr Ndlovu, an owner, was found guilty of the following:

1. Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
2. In terms of Rule 18 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by allowing unregistered persons to have access to schedule medicine.
3. In terms of Regulation 22 of the Regulations relating to the practice of a pharmacy, by operating a pharmacy without a pharmacist on the premises.
4. In terms of Section 22(4)(5) of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, by failing to register a Responsible Pharmacist with the South African Pharmacy Council.
5. In terms of Regulation of 39 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by having three pre-packed packets of Austinpen 40mg 10 tablets per pack, three packets of Arthrexin 25mg 10 capsules per packet, three packets of Painmol 500mg 10 tablets per packet.
6. In terms of Regulation 10(5) and 10(6) of the General Regulations published Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to label medicines in accordance with the Regulations.
7. In terms of Regulation 35(1) to 35(3) of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to record all schedule 1 to 6 medicines sales in a prescription book or other permanent record.

The CFI sentenced Mr Ndlovu in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to removal of his name from the register of owners for a period of fifteen (15) years, and he shall not be entitled to remain or to be registered as the owner of a pharmacy or hold any beneficial interest in a pharmacy for this period of time.

MR ZUNAID RASHID (P18798)

Mr Rashid, an owner, was found guilty of the following:

1. Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
2. In terms of Section 22(4)(5) of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, by failing to register a Responsible Pharmacist with the South African Pharmacy Council.
3. In terms of Rule 18 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by allowing unregistered persons to have access to scheduled medicine and/or to perform acts pertaining to the scope of practice of a pharmacist.
4. In terms of Section 14 of the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, as the pharmacy was selling unregistered medicines (Green Lipped Mussel, 150mg).
5. In terms of Regulation 35(1) to (3) of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to record all schedule 1 and 2 medicines sales in a prescription book or other permanent record.

The CFI sentenced Mr Rashid in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to a fine of R30 000 of which R15 000 is suspended for a period of twelve (12) months on condition that the Respondent is not found guilty of the same or similar offence during the period of suspension. A cost order of R12 785, 11 was imposed.

MR DAMODAR REDDY MARPALLY (P27971)

Mr Marpally, a Responsible Pharmacist, was found guilty of the following:

1. In terms of Section 22A(5)(b) of the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by dispensing scheduled medicine, being Amoxicillin capsules, without a prescription.

The CFI sentenced Mr Marpally in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to a fine of R10 000, of which R7 500 was suspended for a period of twelve (12) months on condition that the Respondent is not found guilty of the same or similar offences during the period of suspension. A cost order of R12 785, 11 was imposed.

MR MS MAZIBUKO (P17209)

Mr Mazibuko, a Responsible Pharmacist, was found guilty of the following:

1. In terms of Section 22A(5)(b) of the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by dispensing schedule 6 medicine, Nexiam 5mg, without a prescription.
2. In terms of Rule 10 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by claiming from a medical aid for services not rendered by dispensing medication using a customer’s medical aid without their consent.

The CFI sentenced Mr Mazibuko in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to a fine of R40 000 and a cost order of R 12 785,11.

MS TSHIFHIWA PATRICIA MODIBA (P06537)

Ms Modiba, a pharmacy owner, was found guilty of the following:

1. Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
2. In terms of Rules 4(c) and 18 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by allowing unregistered front shop employees access to scheduled medicines.
3. In terms of Regulation 22 of the Regulations relating to the practice of pharmacy, by operating a pharmacy without a pharmacist on the premises.
4. In terms of Section 22(5) of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, by operating the pharmacy with no registered Responsible Pharmacist.
5. In terms of Regulation 35 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to record all schedule 1 to 6 medicine sales in a prescription book or other permanent record.

The CFI sentenced Ms Modiba in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to a fine of R75 000, of which R10 000 is suspended for a period of twelve (12) months provided that the Respondent does not commit the same or similar offense within the period of suspension. A cost order of R12 785,11 was imposed.

MR JACOBUS JOHANNES LAUSBERG (P18505)

Mr Lausberg, a Responsible Pharmacist, was found guilty of the following:

1. In terms of Rules 4(c) and 18 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, read together with Regulation 39 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by allowing unqualified persons access to the dispensary where scheduled medications are kept, access to the dispensary pre-packing Schedule 5 medications and access to dispense schedule 1 and 2 medicines in the open shop and such medicines were not kept in the dispensary.

The CFI sentenced Mr Lausberg in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to a fine of R15 000, of which R7 500,00 be suspended for a period of twelve (12) months provided that the Respondent does not commit the same or similar offence within this period. A cost order of R12 785,11 was imposed.

MS GERTRUIDA SERGRUIDA VISAGIE (P13804)

Ms Visagie, a Responsible Pharmacist, was found guilty of the following:

1. In terms of Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
2. In terms of Regulation 39 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to follow the correct pre-packing procedure in that batch records and expiry dates were not maintained, blister packaging was done by an assistant and pre-packs included S2,3 and 4 medications; Predniisone (S4) included in Gout mix are sold without prescription, as well as Repivate (S4) cortisone cream.
3. In terms of Rule 18 of the Rules relating to acts and omissions in respect of which the Council may take disciplinary steps, by allowing an unregistered person to have access to schedule medication as they capture the stock.
4. In terms of Rule 18 of Rules relating to acts and omissions in respect of which the Council may take disciplinary steps, read together with Regulation 9-15 of the Regulations relating to the practice of pharmacy, by allowing pharmacy support personnel to dispense prescriptions without supervision.
5. In terms of Regulation 35(2) of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to keep all Schedule 1 to Schedule 6 medicines sales recorded in a prescription book or other permanent record, and/or the patient details were recorded as “besoeker” without further details. of the patients.
6. In terms of Regulation 35(2) of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, by failing to keep all Schedule 6 medicines sales recorded in a prescription book or other permanent record.

The CFI sentenced Mr Visagie, in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to a fine of R52 500 and a cost order of R12 785,11 was imposed.

MR MOHAMED AYOB (P25807)

Mr Ayob, an owner and Responsible Pharmacist, was found guilty of the following:

1. In terms of Rule 10 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by dispensing Zolnoxs tablets to patients without prescriptions.
2. In terms of Section 22A(5)(b) of the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by dispensing 100 tablets of Mylan Alprazolam 1mg without a prescription.
3. Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
4. In terms of Rule 10 of the rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by issuing medical certificates.
5. In terms of Rule 18 of the rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by allowing unregistered persons access to medicines and/or permitting unregistered persons to perform the scope of practice of a pharmacist as Astrapain and Stilpane syrup were found under the cashier counter.
6. Rule 10 of the rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by having stale stock (medicine) Implanon on the shelf and vaccines in the waste bucket.
7. In terms of Rule 2.7.3.9 of the Rules relating to Good Pharmacy Practice, by having expired medicines on the shelves, which expired on 02/2024 and 04/2024.
8. In terms of Regulation 35 (1)(2) of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substance Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to keep record of schedule 1 and 2 sales in a prescription book or permanent record.
9. In terms of Section 22A(5)(b) of the Medicines and Related Substance Act, 101 of 1965, by dispensing schedule 5 medicines as OTC and without prescriptions.

The CFI sentenced Mr Ayob, in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to removal of his name from the register of pharmacists for a period of three (3) years.

MR R MAREMA

Mr Marema, as an owner, was found guilty of the following:

1. Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
2. In terms of Regulation 22 of the Regulations relating to the practice of pharmacy, by operating a pharmacy without a pharmacist.
3. In terms of Section 22(5) of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, by failing to have a Responsible Pharmacist registered with the South African Pharmacy Council.
4. In terms of Regulation 35(1) to (3) of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to keep a record of all schedule 1 and 2 sales in a prescription book or other permanent record.

The CFI sentenced Mr Marema, in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to removal of his name from the register of owners for a period of fifteen (15) years and he shall not be entitled to direct or indirect beneficial ownership of a pharmacy for this period of time.

MS L SIMELANE (D533884)

Ms Simelane, a pharmacy owner, was found guilty of the following:

1. Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
2. In terms of Regulations 22 of the Regulations relating to the practice of pharmacy, by conducting a pharmacy without a pharmacist.
3. In terms of Section 22(5) of the Pharmacy Act 53 of 1974, by failing to register a Responsible Pharmacist with the South African Pharmacy Council.
4. In terms of Rule 18 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, read together with Regulations 3 to 4 of the Regulations relating to the practice of pharmacy, by allowing an unregistered person access to scheduled medicines and to perform the acts pertaining to the scope of practice of a pharmacist.
5. In terms of Regulation 39 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by pre-packing S4 Amoxycilin, Prednisone, S3 NSAIDs, Ibuprofen, Arthrexin, Diclofenac and S2 Flumix and Goutmix, multiple S2 medication mixed in one tablet bag prepacked and there was no prepack documentation, no batch and expiry dates on the prepacks and no air conditioner in the pharmacy to maintain the temperature.
6. In terms of Regulation 10 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to label packets of pre-packed medicines containing Amoxycillin, Prednisone, Ibuprofen, Arthrexin, Diclofenac, Flumix and Goutmix.
7. In terms of Regulation 35 (1) and (3) of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to keep a prescription book or permanent record for sales of Schedules 1 and 2 medicines.
8. In terms of Regulation 36 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act 101 of 1965, by failing to keep an up-to-date register of all Schedule 6 purchases and sales.
9. In terms of Rule 4(a) of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in terms of which Council may take disciplinary steps, read together with Rule 2.7.3.9 of the Rules relating to Good Pharmacy Practice, by having expired Rota Virus vaccines on the shelves with normal trading stock.
10. In terms of Rule 10 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in terms of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by ordering medication from a community pharmacy.

The CFI sentenced Ms Simelane, in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to removal of her name from the register of owners for a period of ten (10) years and he shall not be entitled to beneficial interest in the ownership of a pharmacy for this period of time.

MS LP LETHOBA

Ms Lethoba, a pharmacy owner, was found guilty of the following:

1. In terms of Rule 18 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary, by allowing unregistered persons access to scheduled medicines.
2. In terms of Regulation 22 of the Regulations relating to the practice of pharmacy, published under the Pharmacy Act 53 of 1974, by operating the pharmacy without a Responsible Pharmacist on the premises.
3. In terms of Section 22(5) of the Pharmacy Act 53 of 1974, by operating the pharmacy without a registered pharmacist for a period beginning from 16 January 2023 until 08 September 2024.

The CFI sentenced Ms Lethoba, in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to removal of her name from the register of owners for a period of five (5) years and shall not be entitled to beneficial interest in the ownership of a pharmacy for this period of time.

MR S MBANJWA

Mr Mbanjwa, an owner, was found guilty of the following:

1. Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
2. In terms of Rule 18 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, read with Regulations 3-4 of the Regulations relating to the practice of pharmacy, by allowing unregistered pharmacy support staff to perform the acts of a pharmacist.
3. In terms of Section 22(5) of the Pharmacy Act 53 of 1974, by conducting a pharmacy without a registered Responsible Pharmacist for a period beginning from 31 May 2023 until 03 September 2024.
4. In terms of Regulation 10(5)(6) of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act 101 of 1965, by failing to label Mylan Diclofenac in accordance with regulations.
5. In terms of Regulation 35 (1-3) of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to record all schedule 1 and 2 medicine sales in a prescription book or other permanent record.
6. In terms of Regulation 36 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to keep a key for the schedule 6 cupboard and there was no register for schedule 6 medicines.

The CFI sentenced Mr Mbanjwa, in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to a fine of R90 000, of which R15 000 is suspended for a period of twelve (12) months on condition that the Respondent does not commit the same or similar offence during the period of suspension. A cost order of R12 785,11 was imposed.

MS WINNIEFRED NYELETI RINGANE (P48556)

Ms Ringane, a Responsible Pharmacist, was found guilty of the following:

1. In terms of Rule 4(a) of the Rules relating to the acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by incorrectly dispensing Dexamethasone Corticosteroid (Betadexamine) instead of Celestamine 5ml 5/7 to a minor with incorrect instruction to “complete the course” instead of “take the medication for 5 days” which led to the medication being taken for 16 days.

The CFI sentenced Ms Ringane, in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to a fine of R10 000, of which R5 000 is suspended for a period of twelve (12) months on condition that the Respondent does not commit the same or similar offence during the period of suspension. A cost order of R12 785,11 was imposed.

MR AL BOETE & MR LG NDLOVU

Mr Boete and Mr Ndlovu, as pharmacy owners, were found guilty of the following:

1. Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
2. In terms of Rule 18 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by allowing unregistered front shop staff members access to scheduled medicines.
3. In terms of Regulation 22 of the Regulations relating to the practice of pharmacy, by operating a pharmacy without a pharmacist on the premises.
4. In terms of Section 22(5) of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, by operating the pharmacy with no registered Responsible Pharmacist.
5. In terms of Regulation 10(5) and 10(6) of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to label medicines in accordance with regulations.
6. In terms of Regulation 35(1) to 35(3) of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to record all schedule 1 to 6 medicines sales in a prescription book or other permanent record.

The CFI sentenced Mr Boete and Mr Ndlovu in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to removal of their names from the register of owners for a period of ten (10) years and shall not be entitled to direct or indirect beneficial interest in the ownership of a pharmacy for this period of time.

MR GIDEON CORNELIUS VAN DER WATT (P13153)

Mr van der Watt, a Responsible Pharmacist, was found guilty of the following:

1. Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
2. In terms of Regulation 39 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 0of 1965, by failing to conduct pre-packing of amitriptyline in accordance with the relevant Regulations.
3. In terms of Regulation 10 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to correctly label medicines sold for human use, with the directions on how the medications should be used not written.
4. In terms of Section 22A(5)(b) of the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to retrieve most of the Schedule 5 medication prescriptions requested.
5. In terms of Rule 1.1 of the Rules relating to the Code of Conduct for pharmacists and other persons registered in terms of the Pharmacy Act, by failing to act in the best interests of the patients, when you dispensed both Zopivane and Zolpidem without an original prescription written by an authorised prescriber authorising the dispensing of two medication together.
6. In terms of Regulation 10 of the Regulations relating to a Transparent Pricing System for Medicines and Scheduled Substances, by overcharging of medication to clients on four (4) occasions.
7. In terms of Rule 3 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by failing to indicate on the prescription that it was dispensed by him.
8. In terms of Section 22(2) of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, by relocating the pharmacy without informing Council and/or providing pharmaceutical services in an address not recorded with Council.
9. In terms of Section 22A(5)(b) of the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, read together with Rule 23 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by dispensing prescriptions for Zopivane and Zolpidem without a prescription and in a manner that may be interpreted as the promotion of misuse or unsafe use of medicine.

The CFI sentenced Mr van der Watt, in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to a fine of R60 000, of which R2 500 is suspended for a period of twelve (12) months on condition that the Respondent does not commit the same or similar offence during the period of suspension. A cost order of R12 785,11 was imposed.

MR ISMAIL MALL (P07685)

Mr Mall, a pharmacist and owner, was found guilty of the following:

1. In terms of Section 22 of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974 read with Regulation 8 of the Regulations relating to the ownership and licensing of pharmacies, by providing pharmaceutical services in unlicensed premises or failing to record the pharmacy with South African Pharmacy Council.
2. In terms of Regulation 22 of the Regulations relating to the practice of pharmacy, by operating a pharmacy without a pharmacist.

The CFI sentenced Mr Mall, in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to a fine of R25 000 and a cost order of R12 785,11, which is payable immediately.

MR LG NDLOVU

Mr Ndlovu, an owner, was found guilty of the following:

1. Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
2. In terms of Regulation 22 of the Regulations relating to the practice of pharmacy, by operating a pharmacy without a pharmacist.
3. In terms of Section 22(5) of the Pharmacy Act 53 of 1974, by operating a pharmacy without a registered Responsible Pharmacist.
4. In terms of Rule 18 of the Rules relating to acts or omissions in terms of which council may take disciplinary steps, by allowing unregistered persons to have access to schedule medicine and/or perform acts pertaining to the scope of practice of a pharmacist.
5. In terms of Regulation 36 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to keep an up-to-date register for all schedule 6 purchase and sales.
6. In terms of Regulation 35(1) to (3) of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to keep a prescription book or permanent record for Schedule 1 to 6 medicines.
7. In terms of Regulation 10 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 2017, by failing to label medicines as medicines were dispensed to a patient without a label.

The CFI sentenced Mr Ndlovu in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to removal of his name from the register of owners for a period of ten (10) years and shall not be entitled to direct or indirect beneficial interest in the ownership of a pharmacy for this period of time.

MR STEPHANUS KLEINHANS (P06494)

Mr Kleinhans was found guilty of the following:

1. Shortcomings in terms of the Rules relating to good pharmacy practice.
2. In terms of Rule 18 of the Rules in relation to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by allowing unregistered and/or unqualified persons to perform the scope of practice of a pharmacist by allowing them to dispense scheduled medication.
3. In terms of Rule 2.7.3.9 of the Rules relating to Good Pharmacy Practice, by failing to dispose of unusable stock in a safe manner.
4. In terms of Regulation 35 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to record schedule 1 and 2 purchases and sales.
5. In terms of Regulation 10 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to label Flu mix and Gout mix correctly.
6. In terms of Section 22A(5)(b) of the Medicines and Related Substances Act 101 of 1965, by allowing a nurse to dispense medication without a prescription.
7. In terms of Rule 13(b) of the Rules in relation to acts or omissions in respect of which Council may take disciplinary steps, by establishing a pharmacy in another practice or business without permission and vice versa.
8. In terms of Regulation 36 of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to keep an up-to-date register of all Schedule 6 purchases and sales.
9. In terms of Regulation 35(5) of the General Regulations published under the Medicines and Related Substances Act, 101 of 1965, by failing to keep a prescription record for five (5) years as required.

The CFI sentenced Mr Kleinhans, in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to a fine of R55 000 and a cost order of R12 785,11 was imposed.

MR KN MAAFO (P20228)

The CFI sentenced Mr Maafo, in terms of Regulation 18 of the Regulations relating to the conduct of inquiries held in terms of Chapter V of the Pharmacy Act, 53 of 1974, to a fine of R40 000 and a cost order of R12 785,11 was imposed.