Gauteng Gambling Board and Another v MEC for Economic Development:Gauteng Provincial Governement Corporation Ltd (01563/2012) [2012] ZAGPJHC 96 (8 May 2012)

Gauteng Gambling Board and Another v MEC for Economic Development:Gauteng Provincial Governement Corporation Ltd (01563/2012) [2012] ZAGPJHC 96 (8 May 2012)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide any cogent reasons for refusing to relocate as instructed by the respondent, and their reliance on the pending Public Protector investigation was misplaced. The respondent complied with all procedural requirements under the Gauteng Gambling Act, including affording the Board an opportunity to be heard and consulting the relevant standing committee. The EXCO's decision to rationalise agencies was based on a rational and lawful business case study, and the respondent's instructions were neither irrational nor procedurally unfair. The applicants did not satisfy the requirements for interim or final interdict, as they failed to demonstrate...

Citation
[2012] ZAGPJHC 96
Parties
Applicant: Gauteng Gambling Board; Applicant: Sefako Phanuel Mafojane; Respondent: MEC for Economic Development: Gauteng Provincial Government; Respondent: Gauteng Provincial Governement Corporation Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 May 2012
Case Number
01563/2012
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Urgent Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs occasioned by employment of senior counsel.
Judges
Mathopo
Legal Topics
Termination of Membership, Procedural Fairness, Public Finance Management Act, Intergovernmental Dispute, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Termination of Membership Procedural Fairness Public Finance Management Act Intergovernmental Dispute Judicial Review

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gauteng Gambling Board

Applicant

Sefako Phanuel Mafojane

Applicant

MEC for Economic Development: Gauteng Provincial Government

Respondent

Gauteng Provincial Governement Corporation Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceedings should be adjourned pending the outcome of the Public Protector's investigation.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent lawfully terminated the membership of the Board.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's instructions to relocate the Board were rational, lawful, and procedurally fair.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide any cogent reasons for refusing to relocate as instructed by the respondent, and their reliance on the pending Public Protector investigation was misplaced. The respondent complied with all procedural requirements under the Gauteng Gambling Act, including affording the Board an opportunity to be heard and consulting the relevant standing committee. The EXCO's decision to rationalise agencies was based on a rational and lawful business case study, and the respondent's instructions were neither irrational nor procedurally unfair. The applicants did not satisfy the requirements for interim or final interdict, as they failed to demonstrate...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs occasioned by employment of senior counsel.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs including the costs occasioned by the employment of senior counsel.