Malebo v Minister of State Security (2214/2017) [2021] ZAGPPHC 535 (23 August 2021)

Malebo v Minister of State Security (2214/2017) [2021] ZAGPPHC 535 (23 August 2021)

The court found that the respondent failed to provide adequate written reasons for the dismissal of the applicant's grievance and appeal, as required by section 5 of PAJA. The reasons provided, namely the IPMS Appeals panel report, were irrelevant to the applicant's grievance and did not address the substance of his...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 535
Parties
Applicant: Tshediso Edwin Malebo; Respondent: Minister of State Security
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 August 2021
Case Number
2214/2017
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted. Respondent ordered to provide adequate written reasons for its decisions and to pay costs on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
Cochrane
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Adequacy of Written Reasons, Review of Administrative Action, Delay in Providing Reasons
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Adequacy of Written Reasons Review of Administrative Action Delay in Providing Reasons

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tshediso Edwin Malebo

Applicant

Minister of State Security

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent provided adequate written reasons for dismissing the applicant's grievance and appeal as required by PAJA.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's answering affidavit was admissible given the challenge to the deponent's authority.
  3. 3 Whether the application is moot due to the applicant's retirement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to provide adequate written reasons for the dismissal of the applicant's grievance and appeal, as required by section 5 of PAJA. The reasons provided, namely the IPMS Appeals panel report, were irrelevant to the applicant's grievance and did not address the substance of his complaint. The respondent's answering affidavit was struck out due to the lack of proof of the deponent's authority and personal knowledge. The court rejected the respondent's arguments regarding mootness and undue delay, noting that the respondent itself had caused significant delays. The applicant's entitlement to reasons was upheld, and a punitive costs order was granted...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Respondent ordered to provide adequate written reasons for its decisions and to pay costs on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The respondent is directed to furnish the applicant with adequate written reasons for its decisions to dismiss the applicant's grievance dated 14 April 2009 and to dismiss the applicant's appeal dated 19 January 2015 within 90 days from the date of this order.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application, including the costs of counsel, on the attorney and client scale.