Eastern Cape NGO Coalition v MEC for Social Development EC [2021] ZAECGHC 33 (16 March 2021)
The court found that while the Department's policy shift towards transformation and prioritisation of rural communities was constitutionally permissible, the process by which subsidies to NGOs were reduced lacked proper consultation. The meetings relied upon by the respondent did not constitute genuine consultation, as they occurred after the decision had already been made and did not engage meaningfully with the NGOs' expertise or concerns. This procedural shortcoming rendered the decision irrational and unlawful. However, the court held that the applicant was not entitled to compensation or damages, as there was no legitimate expectation of continued funding at previous levels and the...
- Citation
- [2021] ZAECGHC 33
- Parties
- Applicant: Eastern Cape NGO Coalition; Respondent: MEC for the Department of Social Development, Eastern Cape Province
- Court
- Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 16 March 2021
- Case Number
- 2460/2018
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- The respondent's decision to reduce or terminate subsidies to NGOs in 2017/2018 is declared irrational and unlawful. Prayers for further relief, including compensation and future consultation orders, are dismissed. The respondent is ordered to pay 60% of the applicant's taxed costs.
- Judges
- A Govindjee
- Legal Topics
- Consultation Requirements, Rationality Review, Bill of Rights Limitation, Social Security Rights, Public Administration Principles
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Eastern Cape NGO Coalition
Applicant
MEC for the Department of Social Development, Eastern Cape Province
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent's decision to reduce or terminate NGO subsidies in 2017/2018 was irrational and unlawful.
- 2 Whether there was a duty to consult with affected NGOs prior to subsidy reduction.
- 3 Whether the process followed by the Department met constitutional and administrative law standards.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while the Department's policy shift towards transformation and prioritisation of rural communities was constitutionally permissible, the process by which subsidies to NGOs were reduced lacked proper consultation. The meetings relied upon by the respondent did not constitute genuine consultation, as they occurred after the decision had already been made and did not engage meaningfully with the NGOs' expertise or concerns. This procedural shortcoming rendered the decision irrational and unlawful. However, the court held that the applicant was not entitled to compensation or damages, as there was no legitimate expectation of continued funding at previous levels and the...
Court Disposition
The respondent's decision to reduce or terminate subsidies to NGOs in 2017/2018 is declared irrational and unlawful. Prayers for further relief, including compensation and future consultation orders, are dismissed. The respondent is ordered to pay 60% of the applicant's taxed costs.
Orders
- The respondent’s decision to reduce or terminate subsidies given to non-governmental organisations in 2017/2018 is declared to be irrational and unlawful.
- Prayers 2, 3 and 4 of the Notice of Motion are dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment