Gordhan v Public Protector and Others (48521/19) [2019] ZAGPPHC 311; [2019] 3 All SA 743 (GP) (29 July 2019)

Gordhan v Public Protector and Others (48521/19) [2019] ZAGPPHC 311; [2019] 3 All SA 743 (GP) (29 July 2019)

The court found that Gordhan had established a prima facie right to the relief sought, as the Public Protector failed to identify special circumstances justifying jurisdiction over complaints older than two years. The remedial orders were vague, contradictory, and could cause irreparable harm to Gordhan's reputation and career if implemented before the review. The balance of convenience favoured suspension, as the events occurred a decade ago and no urgency justified immediate enforcement. The court held that suspending the remedial orders would not undermine the Public Protector's office or constitutional duties, as such suspensions are routinely granted pending review. No alternative...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 311
Parties
Applicant: Pravin Jamnadas Gordhan; Respondent: The Public Protector; Respondent: Busisiwe Mkhwebane; Respondent: The President of the Republic of South Africa; Respondent: The Speaker of the National Assembly; Respondent: The Minister of State Security; Respondent: The National Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: The National Commissioner of Police; Respondent: Visvanathan Pillay; Respondent: George Ngakane Virgil Magashula; Respondent: Economic Freedom Fighters
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 July 2019
Case Number
48521/19
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict (part A) Pending Review (part B)
Outcome
Interim interdict granted; remedial orders suspended pending review; costs awarded against Public Protector, EFF, and their offices.
Judges
Potterill
Legal Topics
Public Protector Remedial Action, Interim Interdict, Separation of Powers, Executive Ethics Code, Audi Alteram Partem, Jurisdiction of Public Protector
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Public Protector Remedial Action Interim Interdict Separation of Powers Executive Ethics Code Audi Alteram Partem +1 more

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pravin Jamnadas Gordhan

Applicant

The Public Protector

Respondent

Busisiwe Mkhwebane

Respondent

The President of the Republic of South Africa

Respondent

The Speaker of the National Assembly

Respondent

The Minister of State Security

Respondent

The National Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

The National Commissioner of Police

Respondent

Visvanathan Pillay

Respondent

George Ngakane Virgil Magashula

Respondent

Economic Freedom Fighters

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict (part A) Pending Review (part B)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court can grant an interim interdict suspending the Public Protector's remedial orders pending review.
  2. 2 Whether Gordhan has established a prima facie right to the relief sought.
  3. 3 Whether irreparable harm will result if the remedial orders are enforced before review.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Gordhan had established a prima facie right to the relief sought, as the Public Protector failed to identify special circumstances justifying jurisdiction over complaints older than two years. The remedial orders were vague, contradictory, and could cause irreparable harm to Gordhan's reputation and career if implemented before the review. The balance of convenience favoured suspension, as the events occurred a decade ago and no urgency justified immediate enforcement. The court held that suspending the remedial orders would not undermine the Public Protector's office or constitutional duties, as such suspensions are routinely granted pending review. No alternative...

Court Disposition

Interim interdict granted; remedial orders suspended pending review; costs awarded against Public Protector, EFF, and their offices.

Orders

  • Part A of the application is dealt with as urgent; applicant's failure to comply with court rules is condoned.
  • The remedial orders in paragraph 8 of the Public Protector's report 36 of 2019/20 of 5 July 2019 are suspended pending the final determination of Part B of this application.