CHASKALSON P Durban and Coast Local Division of the High Court for an order directing the Addington Hospital to provide him with ongoing dialysis treatment and interdicting the Respondent from refusing him admission to the renal unit of the hospital. The appellant claimed that in terms of the 1996 Constitution the Addington Hospital is obliged to make dialysis treatment available to him. The respondent opposed the application. The matter came before Combrinck J who dismissed the application. 2 [6] The appellant applied to the High Court for a certificate in terms of rule 18(e) of the Constitutional Court Rules. The certificate was granted and he applied to this Court in terms of Rule 18 for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court. The application for leave to appeal was set down for hearing as a matter of urgency. The respondent did not oppose the application and correctly acknowledged that the matter raised issues of importance on which a decision on the merits of the appeal should be given by this Court. The matter was dealt with on this basis, and counsel were required to deal only with the merits of the appeal, it being accepted by the parties and this Court that the appeal should be heard and decided. [7] The appellant based his claim on section 27(3) of the 1996 Constitution which provides: 2 Thiagraj Soobramoney v Minister of Health: Province of KwaZulu-Natal D&CLD 5846/97, 21 August 1997, unreported. 4