- Mediclinic Potchefstroom cancelled obstetrician and gynaecologist Dr Christian Kagiso Seipei’s lease and barred him from admitting new patients, citing concerns about a maternity incident, staff interactions and an anaesthetist’s credentials.
- Judge Petersen dismissed Seipei’s urgent application to compel the hospital to maintain the arrangement, finding that the balance of convenience did not favour the relief he sought.
- The judgment does not finally decide whether the cancellation was lawful or whether the allegations against Seipei were justified.
Mediclinic Potchefstroom terminated the consulting-room lease and admission rights of a long-serving obstetrician and gynaecologist, raising issues about patient safety, staff relations and compliance with hospital rules.
Dr Christian Kagiso Seipei, who had run his private practice at the hospital for about eight years, approached the High Court in Mahikeng for an urgent order to suspend the cancellation and stop the hospital from excluding him or interfering with his work while he challenged the decision.
Judge AH Petersen dismissed the application on 19 October 2026, holding that the hospital should not be forced to continue the arrangement while the disputed concerns were unresolved.
Mediclinic’s letter, dated 25 August 2026, cancelled Seipei’s lease and admission rights with immediate effect, stopped new patient admissions, allowed current inpatients to complete their treatment, and required him to vacate his rooms by 30 September 2026.
The hospital relied on contract terms that allowed immediate cancellation in certain cases, including behaviour or practices that it believed put patients or staff at risk or could lead to legal or reputational problems.
Hospital outlines concerns about maternity case and anaesthetist
Mediclinic highlighted four main areas of concern, including Seipei’s conduct with nursing staff during a maternity incident, the clinical management of that case, his attendance at Mother and Baby Collaborative meetings, and his use of an anaesthetist whose credentials were questioned.
Seipei disputed the hospital’s account of the maternity incident and said he had used his clinical judgment in a high-risk situation. He also challenged the claims about his interactions with staff.
Judge Petersen warned against treating the allegations as facts and noted inconsistencies in the timeline of the incident. The available evidence, the judge said, did not justify final findings about negligence or discrimination.
However, the judge found that concerns about governance had more support. Attendance records showed Seipei was present at only two of six collaborative meetings in 2024, three of six in 2025, and one of four held up to June 2026, a record he did not seriously dispute.
Seipei also admitted to using the anaesthetist in question, saying he had previously worked with him at the hospital and was unaware he lacked the required admission privileges until told otherwise. The judge said these matters could not be ignored, although they did not in themselves prove Mediclinic’s cancellation was lawful.
Specialist did not respond to written warnings
Seipei argued that Mediclinic had not given him a fair chance to answer the concerns before ending their arrangement. The judgment shows that the hospital wrote to him on 25 June 2026, outlining the issues and giving him 10 business days to respond in writing. He did not reply.
In July, Seipei asked to meet the hospital’s directors with legal representation. Mediclinic declined to hold a meeting at that stage, renewed its request for a written response and gave him another 10 business days to reply before making a decision. Seipei acknowledged that he did not use this second opportunity to respond in writing.
Judge Petersen found that the agreement did not promise an oral hearing before directors, with legal representation, before the hospital could use the relevant cancellation clause.
The judge also considered Mediclinic’s argument that Seipei’s silence should count against him but made clear that not replying did not mean he admitted every allegation. The clinical and other disputed issues would have to be considered separately.
Later lease weakens case for keeping consulting rooms
Seipei partly relied on a lease signed in September 2018, which dealt with tenants who disputed cancellation and stayed on while the dispute was settled.
Mediclinic produced a later lease from March 2021, covering the same consulting rooms, with a fixed term ending in September 2023, after which it continued month to month. A later rental amendment referred specifically to this agreement.
Judge Petersen found that the later lease and amendment provided a strong answer to Seipei’s argument that the 2018 terms still applied. The judge also found that the earlier lease did not guarantee that every cancellation would be suspended just because a tenant disputed it, nor did it promise continued admission rights or require the hospital to take new patients during a legal dispute.
Still, the judgment recognised that Mediclinic’s right to cancel was not beyond scrutiny. The hospital must still show it had proper grounds for cancellation under the contract.
Balance of convenience against continued practice
In deciding whether to grant interim relief, Judge Petersen assumed in Seipei’s favour that he had at least an arguable right to challenge the cancellation, although that right was doubtful. The judge did not rule on whether the cancellation was ultimately valid, finding instead that the balance of convenience tipped the scales.
Seipei faced real disruption to his private practice, loss of patients and damage to professional relationships. The judge did not accept that his work at a public hospital removed these problems. But forcing Mediclinic to keep the arrangement would require it to continue admitting patients while questions about governance and credentials remained unresolved.
The judge said the interests of patients and staff were directly affected by the order Seipei wanted, even though they were not parties to the contract dispute. The order could also make it harder for the hospital to act quickly if new safety concerns arose.
Judge Petersen stressed that this judgment did not find Seipei unfit to practise; it was only about whether the hospital should be compelled to keep the arrangement on an interim basis while the dispute continued. The application was dismissed, though Seipei can still pursue a separate and properly formulated challenge to the cancellation.
Costs order against specialist
Seipei was ordered to pay Mediclinic’s costs of opposing the interim application, including the fees of one counsel on Scale B. Each side must cover its own costs for the appearance and removal of the case from the roll on 2 October 2026.
Seipei was also ordered to pay Mediclinic’s wasted costs for the postponement on 9 October 2026, after his representatives failed to upload the necessary papers on CaseLines, preventing the court from considering them. Judge Petersen said the costs order was compensatory, not punitive.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
