Kweyama and Others v Special Investigating Unit and Others (2483/2020) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1134 (10 October 2023)

Kweyama and Others v Special Investigating Unit and Others (2483/2020) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1134 (10 October 2023)

The court held that the SIU's report and recommendations did not constitute administrative action as defined by PAJA, as they lacked direct, external legal effect and did not adversely affect the rights of the interim board members. The SIU's findings were inchoate and not final, amounting only to an intention to recommend further action. The SIU acted within its statutory powers to investigate maladministration and fiduciary duties, and its process was rational and procedurally fair. The applicants were afforded opportunities to respond to the SIU's findings and intended remedial actions. The rules of natural justice, including audi alteram partem, did not apply to the SIU's...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1134
Parties
Applicant: Khanyisile Kweyama; Applicant: Mathatha Tsedu; Applicant: Febe Potgieter-Gqubule; Applicant: John Mattisonn; Respondent: Special Investigating Unit; Respondent: South African Broadcasting Corporation; Respondent: Mjayeli Security (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Mafoko Security Patrols (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Mafoko Security Supplies (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Mafoko Security Services; Respondent: President of South Africa
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 October 2023
Case Number
2483/2020
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judges
Dosio
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Ultra Vires, Fiduciary Duties, Remedial Action, Audi Alteram Partem, Legality Principle
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Ultra Vires Fiduciary Duties Remedial Action Audi Alteram Partem Legality Principle

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 27 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khanyisile Kweyama

Applicant

Mathatha Tsedu

Applicant

Febe Potgieter-Gqubule

Applicant

John Mattisonn

Applicant

Special Investigating Unit

Respondent

South African Broadcasting Corporation

Respondent

Mjayeli Security (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Mafoko Security Patrols (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Mafoko Security Supplies (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Mafoko Security Services

Respondent

President of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the SIU's remedial actions in its report constitute reviewable administrative action under PAJA.
  2. 2 Whether the SIU acted ultra vires in investigating the fiduciary duties of the SABC interim board members.
  3. 3 Whether the SIU's process was irrational, procedurally unfair, or unconstitutional.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the SIU's report and recommendations did not constitute administrative action as defined by PAJA, as they lacked direct, external legal effect and did not adversely affect the rights of the interim board members. The SIU's findings were inchoate and not final, amounting only to an intention to recommend further action. The SIU acted within its statutory powers to investigate maladministration and fiduciary duties, and its process was rational and procedurally fair. The applicants were afforded opportunities to respond to the SIU's findings and intended remedial actions. The rules of natural justice, including audi alteram partem, did not apply to the SIU's...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.