Mbeki and Another v Calata and Others (005245/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 753 (1 August 2025)

Mbeki and Another v Calata and Others (005245/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 753 (1 August 2025)

The court held that the applicants, Mr. Mbeki and Ms. Mabandla, do not have a direct and substantial interest in the outcome of the main application sufficient to justify intervention under Uniform Rule 12. The references to them in the founding papers are either official acts, hearsay from published books, or by inference due to their former offices, and no specific findings or orders are sought against them. The jurisprudence establishes that reputational harm or concern with reasoning does not constitute a legal interest in the order. The overarching issue of political interference in TRC prosecutions has already been decided by binding court findings, and the Commission of Inquiry is...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 753
Parties
Applicant: Thabo Mvuyelwa Mbeki; Applicant: Brigitte Sylvia Mabandla; Respondent: Lukhanyo Bruce Matthews Calata; Respondent: Alegria Kutsaka Nyoka; Respondent: Bonakele Jacobs; Respondent: Fatiema Haron-Masoet; Respondent: Tryphina Nomandlovu Mokgatle; Respondent: Karl Andrew Weber; Respondent: Kim Turner; Respondent: Lyndene Page; Respondent: Mbuso Khoza; Respondent: Neville Beling; Respondent: Nombuyiselo Mhlauli; Respondent: Sarah Bibi Lall; Respondent: Sizakele Ernestina Simelane; Respondent: Sindiswa Elizabeth Mkonto; Respondent: Stephens Mbuti Mabelane; Respondent: Thuli Kubheka; Respondent: Hlekani Edith Rikhotoso; Respondent: Tshidiso Motasi; Respondent: Nomali Rita Galela; Respondent: Phumeza Mandisa Hashe; Respondent: Mkhontowesizwe Godolozi; Respondent: Mogapi Solomon Tlhapi; Respondent: Foundation for Human Rights; Respondent: Government of the Republic of South Africa; Respondent: President of the Republic of South Africa; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development; Respondent: National Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Minister of Police; Respondent: National Commissioner of the South African Police Service
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 August 2025
Case Number
005245/2025
Procedural Posture
Intervention Application / Judgment on Application to Intervene
Outcome
Application to intervene dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Millar
Legal Topics
Intervention Under Uniform Rule 12, Direct and Substantial Interest, Commission of Inquiry, Constitutional Damages, Political Interference, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Cases
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Intervention Under Uniform Rule 12 Direct and Substantial Interest Commission of Inquiry Constitutional Damages Political Interference Truth and Reconciliation Commission Cases

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thabo Mvuyelwa Mbeki

Applicant

Brigitte Sylvia Mabandla

Applicant

Lukhanyo Bruce Matthews Calata

Respondent

Alegria Kutsaka Nyoka

Respondent

Bonakele Jacobs

Respondent

Fatiema Haron-Masoet

Respondent

Tryphina Nomandlovu Mokgatle

Respondent

Karl Andrew Weber

Respondent

Kim Turner

Respondent

Lyndene Page

Respondent

Mbuso Khoza

Respondent

Neville Beling

Respondent

Nombuyiselo Mhlauli

Respondent

Sarah Bibi Lall

Respondent

Sizakele Ernestina Simelane

Respondent

Sindiswa Elizabeth Mkonto

Respondent

Stephens Mbuti Mabelane

Respondent

Thuli Kubheka

Respondent

Hlekani Edith Rikhotoso

Respondent

Tshidiso Motasi

Respondent

Nomali Rita Galela

Respondent

Phumeza Mandisa Hashe

Respondent

Mkhontowesizwe Godolozi

Respondent

Mogapi Solomon Tlhapi

Respondent

Foundation for Human Rights

Respondent

Government of the Republic of South Africa

Respondent

President of the Republic of South Africa

Respondent

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development

Respondent

National Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Minister of Police

Respondent

National Commissioner of the South African Police Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Intervention Application / Judgment on Application to Intervene

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have a direct and substantial interest in the outcome of the main application sufficient to justify intervention.
  2. 2 Whether reputational harm alone constitutes a legal interest for intervention under Uniform Rule 12.
  3. 3 Whether the main application requires specific findings against the applicants to justify their intervention.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicants, Mr. Mbeki and Ms. Mabandla, do not have a direct and substantial interest in the outcome of the main application sufficient to justify intervention under Uniform Rule 12. The references to them in the founding papers are either official acts, hearsay from published books, or by inference due to their former offices, and no specific findings or orders are sought against them. The jurisprudence establishes that reputational harm or concern with reasoning does not constitute a legal interest in the order. The overarching issue of political interference in TRC prosecutions has already been decided by binding court findings, and the Commission of Inquiry is...

Court Disposition

Application to intervene dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.