Commercial farmers have won a major court battle against agriculture minister John Steenhuisen after Gauteng High Court Judge Cornelius Johannes van der Westhuizen ruled that livestock owners may privately procure and administer foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) vaccines, dealing a significant blow to the government’s efforts to maintain exclusive control over the vaccination programme.
In a judgment that repeatedly criticised the state’s legal arguments, Van der Westhuizen found that farmers had established a prima facie right to relief and that the balance of convenience favoured allowing private vaccination efforts to continue while the legal dispute is finalised.
The case was brought by Sakeliga, Suider-Afrika Agri Inisiatief, and Free State Agriculture against Steenhuisen, the Department of Agriculture, and several state entities amid growing concern over the spread of FMD across parts of the country.
At the heart of the dispute was the government’s insistence that private livestock owners could not independently source and administer FMD vaccines.
The court appeared unimpressed.
Referring to the state’s position, Van der Westhuizen recorded that the applicants argued the government’s stance reflected a misunderstanding of the law and stated that it highlighted a “clear misconception of the legal position that was irrational, particularly in view of the fast spreading of the FMD”.
The judge then delivered one of the most damaging observations in the judgment.
“The omission is glaring,” he wrote after noting that Steenhuisen’s department had failed to identify any general control measure prohibiting private vaccination.
Risks posed by delaying vaccinations
In another stinging passage, the court found “no substantive argument was provided on behalf of the said respondents to indicate clearly where such prohibition was gazetted into law, and no convincing argument was presented on the said respondents’ behalf”.
Van der Westhuizen also rejected suggestions that allowing private vaccinations would undermine the government’s disease-control efforts.
“The interim relief would not negatively impact the said respondents’ exercise” of their obligations in curtailing the FMD. To the contrary, it would assist them in the fight against FMD,” the judge ruled.
The court further warned of the risks posed by delaying vaccinations while the disease continues spreading.
“The apprehension of irreparable harm follows where the FMD is spreading rapidly outside of the proclaimed controlled areas,” Van der Westhuizen said.
Pending the outcome of further proceedings, livestock owners and managers will be allowed to buy and use lawfully imported or manufactured FMD vaccines, but they must follow strict notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.
Farmers must notify veterinary authorities at least five days before administering vaccines and provide detailed information about the animals, the vaccination programme and the individuals performing the procedure.
Sworn affidavits required
The order also requires livestock owners to submit sworn affidavits after vaccination confirming compliance with animal disease regulations and cold-chain requirements.
Significantly, the court ordered that Steenhuisen, the department’s director-general and the director of animal health, may not interfere in commercial relationships involving the lawful importation and supply of FMD vaccines.
Adding to the department’s setback, Van der Westhuizen ordered the minister, director-general and director of animal health to pay the applicants’ legal costs, including the cost of two counsel and mediation proceedings.
The applicants have been granted a 20-day period to initiate proceedings for final relief, potentially leading to one of the most significant legal battles over agricultural disease control recently.
For now, however, the country’s farmers have secured a courtroom victory that the judge believes will not hinder the government’s fight against FMD but may instead strengthen it.
- Gauteng High Court ruled that commercial farmers can privately procure and administer foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) vaccines, challenging the government's exclusive control over vaccination.
- Judge Van der Westhuizen criticized the government's legal stance as irrational and lacking any lawful prohibition against private vaccination efforts.
- The court found no credible evidence that private vaccinations would harm government disease-control strategies and ruled that private efforts could aid in controlling FMD spread.
- Livestock owners must follow strict notification, reporting, and affidavit requirements when vaccinating, with legal protection against government interference in vaccine supply.
- The government was ordered to pay the applicants' legal costs, and the court granted farmers 20 days to seek final relief, signaling a potential major legal battle over agricultural disease control.
