Gumede and Another v Small Enterprise Development Agency and Another (5670/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1228 (22 November 2024)

Gumede and Another v Small Enterprise Development Agency and Another (5670/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1228 (22 November 2024)

The court found that the respondents complied with the remedial action ordered by the Public Protector by making a quantified settlement offer, which the applicants rejected. The Public Protector did not issue any notice of non-compliance or take further steps against the respondents. The court held that constitutional damages are not appropriate where delictual remedies are available, as the common law provides sufficient vindication of constitutional rights. The applicants failed to prove entitlement to constitutional damages or that such damages would serve as a significant deterrent. The claim for constitutional damages under section 38 of the Constitution was dismissed, as the...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 1228
Parties
Applicant: Gumede Gladys Bukeka; Applicant: Ubuhle Be Afrika; Respondent: Small Enterprise Development Agency; Respondent: Department of Trade, Industry and Competition
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 November 2024
Case Number
5670/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
J M Matsemela
Legal Topics
Public Protector Remedial Action, Constitutional Damages, Delictual Claim, Appropriate Relief, Section 38 Constitution, Compliance With Remedial Action
Civil Procedure Delict Constitutional Law Public Protector Remedial Action Constitutional Damages Delictual Claim Appropriate Relief Section 38 Constitution +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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gumede Gladys Bukeka

Applicant

Ubuhle Be Afrika

Applicant

Small Enterprise Development Agency

Respondent

Department of Trade, Industry and Competition

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents complied with the remedial action ordered by the Public Protector.
  2. 2 Whether constitutional damages are appropriate where delictual remedies are available.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to compensation under section 38 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents complied with the remedial action ordered by the Public Protector by making a quantified settlement offer, which the applicants rejected. The Public Protector did not issue any notice of non-compliance or take further steps against the respondents. The court held that constitutional damages are not appropriate where delictual remedies are available, as the common law provides sufficient vindication of constitutional rights. The applicants failed to prove entitlement to constitutional damages or that such damages would serve as a significant deterrent. The claim for constitutional damages under section 38 of the Constitution was dismissed, as the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicants' claim is dismissed with costs.