Maru and Others v MEC for Transport and Community Safety Eastern Cape and Others (272/2024) [2025] ZAECBHC 9 (5 April 2025)

Maru and Others v MEC for Transport and Community Safety Eastern Cape and Others (272/2024) [2025] ZAECBHC 9 (5 April 2025)

The court found that the investigation report made definitive findings of misconduct and culpability against the applicants without affording them a meaningful opportunity to respond to the allegations, in violation of the audi alteram partem rule. The investigator exceeded his mandate by pronouncing on culpability rather than merely investigating. The report constituted administrative action subject to review under PAJA or, alternatively, a legality review. The procedural unfairness and overreach rendered the report unlawful and required it to be set aside. The matter was not moot, as the report continued to have practical and prejudicial effects on the applicants' employment and...

Citation
[2025] ZAECBHC 9
Parties
Applicant: Noxolo Maru; Applicant: Nosipho Somdyala; Applicant: Thulisa Sonjani; Respondent: MEC for Transport and Community Safety Eastern Cape; Respondent: Head of the Department of Transport Eastern Cape; Respondent: Department of Transport, Eastern Cape
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 April 2025
Case Number
272/2024
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application granted. The investigation report and supplementary report are reviewed and set aside. Costs awarded to applicants.
Judges
Beyleveld
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Procedural Fairness, Legitimate Expectation, Disciplinary Proceedings, Internal Investigation, Audi Alteram Partem
Administrative Law Labour Law Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Procedural Fairness Legitimate Expectation Disciplinary Proceedings Internal Investigation Audi Alteram Partem

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

Parties

Noxolo Maru

Applicant

Nosipho Somdyala

Applicant

Thulisa Sonjani

Applicant

MEC for Transport and Community Safety Eastern Cape

Respondent

Head of the Department of Transport Eastern Cape

Respondent

Department of Transport, Eastern Cape

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the investigation report constituted administrative action subject to review under PAJA or legality review.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were afforded a meaningful opportunity to respond to allegations before definitive findings were made.
  3. 3 Whether the investigator exceeded the scope of his mandate by making conclusive findings of misconduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the investigation report made definitive findings of misconduct and culpability against the applicants without affording them a meaningful opportunity to respond to the allegations, in violation of the audi alteram partem rule. The investigator exceeded his mandate by pronouncing on culpability rather than merely investigating. The report constituted administrative action subject to review under PAJA or, alternatively, a legality review. The procedural unfairness and overreach rendered the report unlawful and required it to be set aside. The matter was not moot, as the report continued to have practical and prejudicial effects on the applicants' employment and...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The investigation report and supplementary report are reviewed and set aside. Costs awarded to applicants.

Orders

  • The investigation report of Mr Tshaka dated 28 October 2022 and the supplementary report dated 16 January 2023 are reviewed and set aside.
  • The respondents, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay the applicants' costs of the application, including counsel's fees on Scale C.