Independent Examinations Board v Umalusi and Others (83440/19) [2020] ZAGPPHC 362 (14 July 2020)

Independent Examinations Board v Umalusi and Others (83440/19) [2020] ZAGPPHC 362 (14 July 2020)

The court found that Umalusi’s application to file a further affidavit introducing a new and contradictory rationalisation for the disputed invoices was not supported by exceptional circumstances or a satisfactory explanation for the late filing. The deponent to the affidavits was the Chief Executive Officer of Umalusi and had personal knowledge of the facts, yet persisted throughout the litigation with reliance on the 2007 policy. The new rationalisation based on the 2015 policy was only introduced two court days before the hearing, after written submissions had been filed, and was not previously relied upon in any correspondence, meetings, or the record. The court held that the...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 362
Parties
Applicant: Independent Examinations Board; Respondent: Umalusi; Respondent: Professor JD Volmink NO; Respondent: Doctor MS Rakometsi NO
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 July 2020
Case Number
83440/19
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Leave to File Further Affidavit in Review Proceedings
Outcome
Application for leave to file a further affidavit dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where so employed.
Judges
Basson
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Late Filing of Affidavits, Review of Administrative Action, Exceptional Circumstances, Public Power Exercise
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Late Filing of Affidavits Review of Administrative Action Exceptional Circumstances Public Power Exercise

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Independent Examinations Board

Applicant

Umalusi

Respondent

Professor JD Volmink NO

Respondent

Doctor MS Rakometsi NO

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Leave to File Further Affidavit in Review Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Umalusi should be granted leave to file a further affidavit introducing a new rationalisation for disputed invoices.
  2. 2 Whether the principles of administrative law permit ex post facto explanations for administrative decisions under review.
  3. 3 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify the late filing of the further affidavit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Umalusi’s application to file a further affidavit introducing a new and contradictory rationalisation for the disputed invoices was not supported by exceptional circumstances or a satisfactory explanation for the late filing. The deponent to the affidavits was the Chief Executive Officer of Umalusi and had personal knowledge of the facts, yet persisted throughout the litigation with reliance on the 2007 policy. The new rationalisation based on the 2015 policy was only introduced two court days before the hearing, after written submissions had been filed, and was not previously relied upon in any correspondence, meetings, or the record. The court held that the...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to file a further affidavit dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where so employed.

Orders

  • The respondents’ application for permission to file a further affidavit is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs of two counsel where so employed.