Hlabela and Another v Nebotalo and Others (2022/051255) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1135 (31 October 2024)

Hlabela and Another v Nebotalo and Others (2022/051255) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1135 (31 October 2024)

The court found that the investigation conducted by the appointed investigator and the investigating committee of the Engineering Council of South Africa was inadequate and failed to comply with mandatory procedures under the Engineering Profession Act and PAJA. The investigator's report was perfunctory, lacking...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 1135
Parties
Applicant: Thabo Zacharia Hlabela; Applicant: Magoba Maphuthi and Associates (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Asiene Thomson Nebotalo; Respondent: Engineering Council of South Africa; Respondent: Council for the Built Environment; Respondent: Anderson Vogt and Partners, Consulting Civil, Structural & Geotechnical Engineers; Respondent: Chairperson of the Engineering Council of South Africa’s Investigation Committee; Respondent: Chairperson of the Appeal Committee of the Council for the Built Environment
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 October 2024
Case Number
2022/051255
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Administrative Decisions Under PAJA
Outcome
Application granted. All four impugned decisions are set aside. The complaint is remitted for fresh investigation by a new investigator. Costs of opposition are awarded against the first respondent.
Judges
B M Gilbert
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Disciplinary Proceedings, Engineering Profession Act, Procedural Fairness, Statutory Investigation, Remittal of Complaint
Administrative Law Land and Property Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Disciplinary Proceedings Engineering Profession Act Procedural Fairness Statutory Investigation Remittal of Complaint

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thabo Zacharia Hlabela

Applicant

Magoba Maphuthi and Associates (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Asiene Thomson Nebotalo

Respondent

Engineering Council of South Africa

Respondent

Council for the Built Environment

Respondent

Anderson Vogt and Partners, Consulting Civil, Structural & Geotechnical Engineers

Respondent

Chairperson of the Engineering Council of South Africa’s Investigation Committee

Respondent

Chairperson of the Appeal Committee of the Council for the Built Environment

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Administrative Decisions Under PAJA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the investigation and disciplinary process conducted by the Engineering Council of South Africa complied with the mandatory procedures under the Engineering Profession Act and PAJA.
  2. 2 Whether the investigating committee's decision to dismiss the complaint was administratively fair and rationally connected to the information before it.
  3. 3 Whether the subsequent appeal decisions by the Council for the Built Environment were valid given the invalidity of the initial investigation decision.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the investigation conducted by the appointed investigator and the investigating committee of the Engineering Council of South Africa was inadequate and failed to comply with mandatory procedures under the Engineering Profession Act and PAJA. The investigator's report was perfunctory, lacking substantive engagement with the core complaints, and failed to obtain or consider critical evidence. The investigating committee did not conduct an adequate investigation and failed to take into account relevant considerations, rendering its decision to dismiss the complaint irrational and unreasonable. As the subsequent appeal decisions by the Council for the Built Environment...

Court Disposition

Application granted. All four impugned decisions are set aside. The complaint is remitted for fresh investigation by a new investigator. Costs of opposition are awarded against the first respondent.

Orders

  • The decision of the fourth respondent dated 8 February 2021 is invalid and set aside.
  • The decision of the investigating committee of the second respondent dismissing the applicants’ complaint is invalid and set aside.