Ernst and Young Advisory Service (Pty) Ltd v Rabie and Others (56029/18) [2019] ZAGPPHC 629 (24 October 2019)

Ernst and Young Advisory Service (Pty) Ltd v Rabie and Others (56029/18) [2019] ZAGPPHC 629 (24 October 2019)

The court found that the applicant had established urgency as the Public Protector's investigation would render the rescission application academic and cause irreparable harm. The applicant demonstrated a clear right as it was directly affected by the investigation ordered by the court. The balance of convenience favoured granting the interdict, as no prejudice would be suffered by the Public Protector if the investigation was delayed, and the first respondent's claims of prejudice were unpersuasive. There was no alternative remedy available to the applicant, as the Public Protector refused to halt the investigation absent a court order. The requirements for an interim interdict were...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 629
Parties
Applicant: Ernst and Young Advisory Service (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Rabie, Virgil Humphrey; Respondent: Rabie, Anthea Berenice; Respondent: Advocate B Mkhwebane (Public Protector); Respondent: Eskom Holdings (SOC) Ltd; Respondent: Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr Inc
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 October 2019
Case Number
56029/18
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interlocutory Urgent Application for Interim Interdict Pending Rescission
Outcome
Urgent interim interdict granted restraining the Public Protector from investigating pending rescission; first respondent ordered to pay costs.
Judges
Collis
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Urgency Rule 6 12, Rescission of Judgment, Public Protector Investigation

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ernst and Young Advisory Service (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Rabie, Virgil Humphrey

Respondent

Rabie, Anthea Berenice

Respondent

Advocate B Mkhwebane (Public Protector)

Respondent

Eskom Holdings (SOC) Ltd

Respondent

Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr Inc

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interlocutory Urgent Application for Interim Interdict Pending Rescission

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an urgent interim interdict restraining the Public Protector from investigating pending rescission.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for an interim interdict are satisfied.
  3. 3 Whether the matter is sufficiently urgent to justify deviation from normal court rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had established urgency as the Public Protector's investigation would render the rescission application academic and cause irreparable harm. The applicant demonstrated a clear right as it was directly affected by the investigation ordered by the court. The balance of convenience favoured granting the interdict, as no prejudice would be suffered by the Public Protector if the investigation was delayed, and the first respondent's claims of prejudice were unpersuasive. There was no alternative remedy available to the applicant, as the Public Protector refused to halt the investigation absent a court order. The requirements for an interim interdict were...

Court Disposition

Urgent interim interdict granted restraining the Public Protector from investigating pending rescission; first respondent ordered to pay costs.

Orders

  • The forms and service provided for in the Uniform Rules of Court are dispensed with, and the matter is heard as one of urgency in terms of rule 6(12).
  • The third respondent (Public Protector) is interdicted and restrained from conducting any investigation pursuant to paragraph 2 of the order of Mr Acting Justice Millar dated 22 January 2019, pending final determination of the rescission application.