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.
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
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an urgent interim interdict restraining the Public Protector from investigating pending rescission.
- 2 Whether the requirements for an interim interdict are satisfied.
- 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.
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