Godongwana and Others v Pillay, J. and Others (1989/2008) [2009] ZAECGHC 29 (18 May 2009)

Godongwana and Others v Pillay, J. and Others (1989/2008) [2009] ZAECGHC 29 (18 May 2009)

The court found that the Commission of Inquiry's term expired on 30 September 2006, or at the latest 31 December 2006, and no valid proclamation extended its existence beyond that date. The report was delivered after the Commission had ceased to exist, rendering it a nullity and liable to be set aside under section 6(2)(a)(i) of PAJA. The report contained serious allegations against the applicants, and they were not given notice or an opportunity to respond, breaching their right to procedural fairness as required by PAJA. The court accepted that the report constituted administrative action and that the applicants' rights were materially and adversely affected. Although allegations of...

Citation
[2009] ZAECGHC 29
Parties
Applicant: Enoch Godongwana; Applicant: Arnold Makhenkesi Stofile; Applicant: Stone Sizani; Applicant: Mcebisi Jonas; Respondent: Rajarithinam Pillay; Respondent: John Graham Grogan; Respondent: Noluyolo Nonkwelo; Respondent: Premier of the Province of the Eastern Cape
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 May 2009
Case Number
1989/2008
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment After Hearing on Merits and Postponement Application
Outcome
Application granted. The report is set aside and declared a nullity. Costs awarded against the fourth respondent.
Judges
Chetty
Legal Topics
Commission of Inquiry, Procedural Fairness, Jurisdiction of Administrative Body, Review of Administrative Action, Ulterior Motive, Costs Order
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Commission of Inquiry Procedural Fairness Jurisdiction of Administrative Body Review of Administrative Action Ulterior Motive Costs Order

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Enoch Godongwana

Applicant

Arnold Makhenkesi Stofile

Applicant

Stone Sizani

Applicant

Mcebisi Jonas

Applicant

Rajarithinam Pillay

Respondent

John Graham Grogan

Respondent

Noluyolo Nonkwelo

Respondent

Premier of the Province of the Eastern Cape

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment After Hearing on Merits and Postponement Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commission of Inquiry was legally authorised to deliver its report after its term expired.
  2. 2 Whether the report constituted administrative action subject to procedural fairness under PAJA.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' rights to procedural fairness were breached by the Commission.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Commission of Inquiry's term expired on 30 September 2006, or at the latest 31 December 2006, and no valid proclamation extended its existence beyond that date. The report was delivered after the Commission had ceased to exist, rendering it a nullity and liable to be set aside under section 6(2)(a)(i) of PAJA. The report contained serious allegations against the applicants, and they were not given notice or an opportunity to respond, breaching their right to procedural fairness as required by PAJA. The court accepted that the report constituted administrative action and that the applicants' rights were materially and adversely affected. Although allegations of...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The report is set aside and declared a nullity. Costs awarded against the fourth respondent.

Orders

  • The Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Finances of the Eastern Cape established in terms of Provincial Gazette Extraordinary (E.C) Notice No 2 of 2005 dated 8 April 2005 is hereby set aside.
  • The Report is declared a nullity and of no force and effect.