The Constitutional Court has issued a nuanced ruling on a long-standing dispute over a military veterans’ healthcare tender, partially upholding an appeal by the Department of Defence and Military Veterans while clarifying the scope of compensation owed to contractor Zeal Health Innovations (ZIL).
The case traces back to 2015, when ZIL was awarded a three-year contract to deliver healthcare services to military veterans. Although the High Court later declared the tender process constitutionally invalid and unlawful, the Supreme Court of Appeals had directed that the company be reimbursed for documented out-of-pocket expenses as a just and equitable remedy.
In a majority judgment authored by Justice Mathopo, the Constitutional Court addressed whether ZIL was entitled to broader compensation for services rendered under the invalidated agreement. The tender had initially set aside 31.6 million rand, though the total projected value over the three-year term reached approximately 198 million rand.
Justice Mathopo underscored that while benefits derived from an unlawful or invalid contract may factor into determining a fair remedy, they cannot be presumed as automatic entitlements without a thorough, independent evaluation of all relevant circumstances. “Depriving innocent contractors of profits earned through legitimate performance may send undesirable message to the business community,” the judgment observed, while simultaneously warning against awarding unwarranted financial gains.
The Court concluded it would not be just and equitable to uphold ZIL’s contractual rights for the balance of the three-year term. Granting such relief, the judgment explained, could enable the company to claim the full contract price or substantial lost profits covering a 33-month span from August 2015 to May 2018—despite having delivered services for merely two and a half months. The Court characterized such an outcome as a windfall, not legitimate compensation.
Nevertheless, the ruling affirms that the declaration of constitutional invalidity does not strip ZIL of rights accruing under the contract for the brief period of 1–12 June 2015. Additionally, for the interval spanning 13 August 2015 to May 2018, the company retains the right to seek reimbursement for verified out-of-pocket expenses incurred either in maintaining operational readiness to deliver services or in providing emergency care to military veterans.
Separately, legal tensions continue around the National Assembly’s impeachment proceedings. African Transformation Movement (ATM) leader Vuyo Zungula—named as a respondent in a review application lodged by the President before the Western Cape High Court—has formally objected to what he describes as procedural delays.
In correspondence addressed to the President’s legal team, Zungula alleged the use of “Stalingrad tactics” to stall the process. He further warned that suspending the work of the newly constituted impeachment committee pending the review outcome would amount to contempt of court, stressing that Parliament is bound to implement the Constitutional Court’s judgment delivered on 8 May.
To resolve the impasse efficiently, the ATM has urged all parties to jointly approach the Western Cape High Court for an expedited hearing. The movement has proposed 10–12 August 2026 as suitable dates for the Superior Court to consider the review application.