Cipla Medpro _Pty_ Ltd. Head Office

							                                                          Cipla Medpro (Pty) Ltd.
                                                          Reg. No. 1995/004182/07


                                                          Head Office
                                                          Rosen Heights, Pasita Street, Rosen Park, Bellville, RSA 7530
                                                          P.O. Box 1096, Durbanville, RSA 7551
                                                          Tel: (021) 914 0520 (10 lines)
                                                          Fax: (021) 917 4688
                                                          E-mail: corporate@ciplamedpro.co.za
30 March 2005


Dear Healthcare Professional,

RE: CIPLA MEDPRO / PFIZER DISPUTE (Amlodipine besylate)

We recently launched our product Nortwin in competition with Pfizer’s Norvasc® product, because:

1.      we share the belief of our Legislature and Health Ministry that important and live-saving medical treatments should
        be made available to South African citizens at affordable prices; and

2.      our company’s policy is to make safe and effective medicines available to all South Africans at fair, reasonable and
        affordable prices; and

3.      we oppose the monopolistic trade practises of certain multi-national originator drug companies which are contrary
        both to national policy and fair market principles; and

4.      we must challenge any abuse of legal process where this results in higher prices and profit taking at the expense of
        the consumer; and

5.      we were advised and believe that Pfizer’s attempt to extend its patent on amlodipine besylate beyond the expiry of
        the original amlodipine patent in March 2003 is bad both in fact and in law and it therefore falls foul of all of the
        aforegoing.

While we instituted a legal challenge (an application for the revocation of the alleged extended patent) against Pfizer’s
conduct and took the steps available to us to have this issue determined, because of both our belief that Pfizer enjoyed no
valid patent rights and because the Court’s decision, by nature of the procedures of our legal system, would in all
probability only be finalised after April 2007 by which time the additional rights claimed by Pfizer would in any event have
expired, we launched our product knowing that Pfizer would probably challenge this action. We accepted that risk because
of our strong beliefs as set out herein above and in particular our belief that consumers are entitled to have the choice and
other benefits of a legitimate competing product in the marketplace.

Pfizer, predictably, went on the attack and used its substantial resources on all levels to prevent our product entering the
marketplace.

On the legal front Pfizer instituted proceedings to preserve the “status quo”, that is, it sought an order that its monopoly be
preserved pending the determination of the patent dispute (which as we point out will only be decided after the alleged
extended patent in question has in any event expired in 2007).

We countered those proceedings and within the very limited time periods allowed to us, tried to demonstrate to the Court
both that the alleged rights which Pfizer claimed were bad in fact and in law and that the South African consumers were
entitled both to the choice which our product offered and to the reduced pricing which was the result of its presence in the
marketplace.


Amazingly, Pfizer countered our challenge on the basis that it was entitled to protect both its higher pricing and existing
profit margins until such time as the Court in due course (after 2007) decided the main issue between the parties.

                                                              -2-

For the sake of ensuring that South African consumers had access to the treatment at a fair and affordable price,
we even offered to pay Pfizer the amount equal to their loss of profit (determined against their present prices)
should a Court in due course find against our challenge, and furnished it with a guarantee sufficient to cover this
quite considerable amount (in excess of R40 million). Pfizer rejected this offer.

The Court, unfortunately, and at what is the first stage in what is to be a long and protracted legal war, in effect found that
while there was doubt as to the validity of Pfizer’s claims, these could not be rejected until they had been tested fully by a
Court in due course. Furthermore, because, firstly, we had accepted the risk of entering the marketplace before the Court’s
determination of our challenge to Pfizer’s alleged rights, and secondly, because we were not entitled to rely on consumer
interests to advance our case (presumably because consumers were not party to the proceedings) the Court found that the
“status quo” should be preserved pending that further litigation.

We are not deterred by this judgement, but in the face thereof, and while naturally respectful of it, we have instructed our
legal representatives to take all and any steps which are available both to challenge same, including an Appeal to the
Court, and to expedite the finalisation of the main dispute, namely the determination of the question as to the validity of the
rights claimed by Pfizer to continued statutory protection of the monopoly which their product has had to date. We can only
hope that our efforts translate to a result which is of benefit to South African consumers.

Ironically, at its essence the dispute is reduced to whether Pfizer is entitled, between now and April 2007, to continue to
impose its current pricing on the South African market. Since, in all probability, this will be determined after the fact, that is
once South African consumers have already paid those higher prices to Pfizer, Pfizer has taken and enjoyed its present
profit levels, and the market has been deprived of our product, a material injustice to consumers will result. We regret that
despite our best efforts the Court did not intervene in our and the consumers’ favour. Rest assured, however, that we are
not deterred in our mission but rather are fortified by the setback and remain more determined than ever before to succeed.
We believe that fairness and justice will eventually prevail.

To all cardiac patients our heartfelt apologies that we can no longer make our product available to you.

To all pharmacists and doctors, and while the Court Order does not apply to you but merely prevents us further supplying
you with our product, you may elect to return all and any stock of our product which you hold to the wholesaler /
organization you purchased stock from against a full refund.

We will keep you abreast of all and any further developments as and when these materialise.

We remain your partners in the ongoing quest to achieve fairness and balance in the marketplace and, most importantly,
access to safe, effective and affordable treatment for all those who need it.


Yours faithfully,




JEROME SMITH
CEO: Cipla Medpro (Pty) Ltd.


Norvasc® is a registered trademark of Pfizer Inc.




                                                    DIRECTORS: J.S. Smith (Chairman), D. Keshav (Managing), A.D. Watermeyer, Dr. J.N. de Jongh, C. Aucamp,
                                                    V. Liebenberg FOREIGN ADVISORS: A. Lulla, Dr. Y.K. Hamied, M.K. Hamied