Macdonald v Minister of Human Settlement, Water and Sanitation (80277/2019) [2024] ZAGPPHC 511 (30 May 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPPHC 511
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- MBONGWE
- Case number
- 80277/2019
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- MBONGWE
- Case number
- 80277/2019
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The applicant lacks locus standi to bring the application for leave to appeal, as he is not the Public Protector and any rights that may have accrued to him from the remedial action have been extinguished by the court's prior order setting aside the Public Protector's findings and remedial action. The Public Protector acted outside her statutory authority by revisiting matters that had already been resolved through a legislative mediation process and a settlement agreement between the parties. The addendum to the settlement agreement provided a clear process for the water licence application, and the facts demonstrate that the respondent complied with its terms. There are no exceptional circumstances justifying further intervention. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Macdonald, Ian
Applicant Counsel: Adv A. MolverMinister of Human Settlement, Water and Sanitation
Respondent Counsel: Adv Z Matebese SC; Adv P Loselo03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment and Orders Reviewing and Setting Aside Public Protector's Findings.
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant has locus standi to bring the application for leave to appeal.
- 02
Whether any right accrued to the applicant from the Public Protector's remedial action after it was set aside.
- 03
Whether the Public Protector acted within her statutory authority in revisiting matters resolved by settlement.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contends that he seeks to pursue the implementation of the remedial action indicated by the erstwhile Public Protector, which was set aside by the court. He does not address his locus standi directly but maintains that he is entitled to benefit from the remedial action.
- Respondent
- The respondent argues that the applicant lacks locus standi to bring the application for leave to appeal, as the Public Protector's findings and remedial action have been reviewed and set aside, extinguishing any rights that may have accrued to the applicant. The respondent further submits that the Public Protector acted outside her statutory authority by revisiting matters resolved by a legislative mediation process and settlement agreement.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Public Protector Act 23 of 1994, sections 6(9) and 7(9)
The Public Protector may not revisit matters already resolved by a legislative mediation process culminating in a settlement agreement, unless exceptional circumstances are found.
- 02
Macdonald v Minister of Human Settlement, Water and Sanitation (80277/2019) [2024] ZAGPPHC 511
A party must have locus standi to bring an application for leave to appeal; mere benefit from remedial action does not confer standing if the underlying findings have been set aside.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The applicant lacks locus standi to bring the application for leave to appeal, as he is not the Public Protector and any rights that may have accrued to him from the remedial action have been extinguished by the court's prior order setting aside the Public Protector's findings and remedial action. The Public Protector acted outside her statutory authority by revisiting matters that had already been resolved through a legislative mediation process and a settlement agreement between the parties. The addendum to the settlement agreement provided a clear process for the water licence application, and the facts demonstrate that the respondent complied with its terms. There are no exceptional circumstances justifying further intervention. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused.
Obiter and limits
- The addendum to the settlement agreement established a new procedural framework for the water licence application, which the respondent followed.
- The Public Protector's failure to identify exceptional circumstances undermined the legitimacy of her intervention in a matter already resolved by agreement.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 80277/2019
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
DATE: 30 May 2024
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
MACDONALD,
IAN
Applicant
And
THE MINISTER OF HUMAN SETTLEMENT,
WATER
AND
SANITATION
Respondent
In re:
WATER
AND SANITATION
Applicant
THE
PUBLIC PROTECTOR OF SOUTH AFRICA
First Respondent
MACDONALD,
IAN
Second Respondent
JUDGMENT
MBONGWE J:
INTRODUCTION
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against the whole judgment and orders of this court in terms of which the findings and remedial action indicated by the erstwhile Public Protector, Advocate Mkhwebane, against the Minister of Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation (the respondent) were reviewed and set aside.
[2] The applicant for leave to appeal is not the Public Protector, but the party who stood to benefit from the remedial action that has been set aside. The Applicant has not addressed the question of his locus standi to bring this application, save to state that he seeks to pursue the implementation of the remedial action.
[3] The court found that Advocate Mkhwebane’s findings were premised on an improper re-visitation and interrogation of matters that had been resolved in a legislative mediation process which culminated in the conclusion of a Settlement Agreement between the Minister and the Applicant. By her conduct, the then Public Protector had not only impermissibly disregarded the impact of the
Settlement Agreement by making damning findings on aspects which occurred between 2002 and 20 March 2013 when the Settlement Agreement
was concluded, and in that way acting outside the authority of her empowering statutory provisions, being sections 6(9) and section 7(9) of the Public Protector Act 23 of 1994. Inter alia, the Public Protector had failed to make a finding of exceptional circumstances that entitled her to engage in the aged matter between the Applicant and the Minister.
THE
ADDENDUM TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
[4] The addendum to the Settlement Agreement sought to place the parties on a new platform or station. It in effect the addendum maintained the validity of the Applicant’s application for a water licence and the continuation of its processing by the Respondent. Poignantly, the addendum stipulated a period of forty-five days within which the processing of the application should be completed and states that the Applicant shall furnish the Respondent with outstanding information or send communication to the Respondent that he will not be providing any further information and that, upon receipt of the required information or communication that no further information would be provided, the Respondent shall process the application in terms of the provisions of the law in
force as at the date the application was submitted in 2002.
[5] The Applicant’s engagement with the Respondent following the conclusion of the Addendum is succinctly set out in paras 22, 23,24, 25 and 26 of the judgment. The facts in these paras are well within the knowledge of the Applicant and refute Advocate Mkhwebane’s finding of failure by the Respondent to implement the terms of Addendum to the Settlement Agreement. Leave to appeal must consequently be refused for:
5.1 Applicant’s lack of locus standi to bring this application;
5.2 The setting aside of Advocate Mkhwebane’s findings and remedial action rendered none existent any right that may have accrued to the Applicant flowing from the remedial action indicated.
ORDER
[6] Resulting from the findings in this judgment, the following order is made:
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
MPN
MBONGWE
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant: Adv A. Molver Instructed by: Charl Naudé Attorneys For the Respondent: Adv Z Matebese SC; Adv P Loselo Instructed by: The State Attorney, Pretoria
THIS JUDGMENT WAS ELECTRONICALLY TRANSMITTED TO THE PARTIES’ LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND UPLOADED ONTO CASELINES ON 30 MAY 2024.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.