, PLEASE USE THIS GUIDELINES TO ANSWERS YOUR OWN ASSIGNMENT
MRL3702 ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 1 2026
ANSWERS
DUE DATE: APRIL 2026
The issue in this matter concerns whether the handwritten letters issued by Gogo M’lungisi, a
registered traditional healer, constitute valid medical certificates for purposes of sick leave in terms
of South African labour law, particularly section 23 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75
of 1997 (BCEA).
Legal Framework
Section 23(1) of the BCEA provides that an employer is not required to pay an employee for sick
leave if the employee has been absent from work for more than two consecutive days or on more
than two occasions during an eight-week period unless the employee produces a valid medical
certificate stating that they were unable to work due to sickness or injury.1
Section 23(2) further states that the medical certificate must be issued and signed by a medical
practitioner or any other person who is certified to diagnose and treat patients and who is registered
with a professional council established by an Act of Parliament.2 This means that for a medical
certificate to be valid, the practitioner issuing it must be legally recognised and registered with a
statutory body.
The Traditional Health Practitioners Act 22 of 2007 recognises traditional healers as legitimate
healthcare practitioners in South Africa and provides for the establishment of the Traditional Health
Practitioners Council to regulate and register such practitioners.3 The Act therefore provides a
statutory framework within which traditional healers may practise legally.
However, the BCEA requirement remains that the practitioner issuing the certificate must be
registered with a professional council established by legislation.4 If a traditional healer is not
1
Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 s 23(1).
2
Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 s 23(2).
3
Traditional Health Practitioners Act 22 of 2007 s 4.
4
Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 s 23(2).
MRL3702 ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 1 2026
ANSWERS
DUE DATE: APRIL 2026
The issue in this matter concerns whether the handwritten letters issued by Gogo M’lungisi, a
registered traditional healer, constitute valid medical certificates for purposes of sick leave in terms
of South African labour law, particularly section 23 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75
of 1997 (BCEA).
Legal Framework
Section 23(1) of the BCEA provides that an employer is not required to pay an employee for sick
leave if the employee has been absent from work for more than two consecutive days or on more
than two occasions during an eight-week period unless the employee produces a valid medical
certificate stating that they were unable to work due to sickness or injury.1
Section 23(2) further states that the medical certificate must be issued and signed by a medical
practitioner or any other person who is certified to diagnose and treat patients and who is registered
with a professional council established by an Act of Parliament.2 This means that for a medical
certificate to be valid, the practitioner issuing it must be legally recognised and registered with a
statutory body.
The Traditional Health Practitioners Act 22 of 2007 recognises traditional healers as legitimate
healthcare practitioners in South Africa and provides for the establishment of the Traditional Health
Practitioners Council to regulate and register such practitioners.3 The Act therefore provides a
statutory framework within which traditional healers may practise legally.
However, the BCEA requirement remains that the practitioner issuing the certificate must be
registered with a professional council established by legislation.4 If a traditional healer is not
1
Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 s 23(1).
2
Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 s 23(2).
3
Traditional Health Practitioners Act 22 of 2007 s 4.
4
Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 s 23(2).
