Air Chefs Soc Limited v Public Protector of Republic of South Africa & Others (31083-2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 178 (29 February 2024)

Air Chefs Soc Limited v Public Protector of Republic of South Africa & Others (31083-2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 178 (29 February 2024)

The court found that the second respondent's application for leave to appeal did not raise any new issues and that all relevant matters had already been addressed in the original judgment. The Public Protector does not possess judicial review powers, and her remedial actions are limited to investigating and reporting on maladministration. The threshold for granting leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act requires a reasonable prospect of success, which was not met in this case. The court was not persuaded that another court would reach different factual or legal conclusions, and therefore refused leave to appeal.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 178
Parties
Applicant: Air Chefs SOC Limited; Respondent: The Public Protector of the Republic of South Africa; Respondent: Mantell, Simon t/a Mantelli Biscuits; Respondent: South African Airways SOC Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 February 2024
Case Number
31083/2020
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review and Counter Application
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused. The second respondent's application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judges
L R Adams
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Remedial Action, Leave to Appeal, Public Protector Powers
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Remedial Action Leave to Appeal Public Protector Powers

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Air Chefs SOC Limited

Applicant

The Public Protector of the Republic of South Africa

Respondent

Mantell, Simon t/a Mantelli Biscuits

Respondent

South African Airways SOC Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Review and Counter Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second respondent is entitled to leave to appeal against the dismissal of his counter-application for review and substitution of remedial action ordered by the Public Protector.
  2. 2 Whether the Public Protector possesses judicial review powers and whether her remedial actions are subject to substitution by the court.
  3. 3 Whether the threshold for granting leave to appeal under s 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act is met in this matter.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second respondent's application for leave to appeal did not raise any new issues and that all relevant matters had already been addressed in the original judgment. The Public Protector does not possess judicial review powers, and her remedial actions are limited to investigating and reporting on maladministration. The threshold for granting leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act requires a reasonable prospect of success, which was not met in this case. The court was not persuaded that another court would reach different factual or legal conclusions, and therefore refused leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused. The second respondent's application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The second respondent’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.