Mbina-Mthembu v Public Protector (208/2018) [2019] ZAECBHC 4; [2019] 3 All SA 241 (ECB); 2019 (6) SA 534 (ECB) (7 March 2019)

Mbina-Mthembu v Public Protector (208/2018) [2019] ZAECBHC 4; [2019] 3 All SA 241 (ECB); 2019 (6) SA 534 (ECB) (7 March 2019)

The court held that the Public Protector's findings against the applicant were legally correct and rationally connected to the evidence and law. The diversion of funds from social infrastructure to funeral expenses was unlawful, as Treasury Regulation 6.3.1(c) did not authorise such action and could not override section 43(1) of the PFMA. The procurement process was found to be irregular and did not comply with constitutional and statutory requirements, with the applicant centrally involved in approving payments without adherence to prescribed procedures. The transfer of public funds to a private account was admitted by the applicant as irregular and constituted maladministration. The...

Citation
[2019] ZAECBHC 4
Parties
Applicant: Nomdakazana Tibelo Marion Mbina-Mthembu; Respondent: The Public Protector
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 March 2019
Case Number
208/2018
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
C Plasket, V Nqumse
Legal Topics
Public Protector Review, Maladministration, Error of Law, Procurement Irregularities, Fruitless and Wasteful Expenditure
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Public Protector Review Maladministration Error of Law Procurement Irregularities Fruitless and Wasteful Expenditure

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nomdakazana Tibelo Marion Mbina-Mthembu

Applicant

The Public Protector

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Public Protector's adverse findings and remedial action against the applicant were reviewable and should be set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the diversion of funds appropriated for social infrastructure to funeral expenses was lawful.
  3. 3 Whether the procurement process for funeral-related goods and services complied with constitutional and statutory requirements.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Public Protector's findings against the applicant were legally correct and rationally connected to the evidence and law. The diversion of funds from social infrastructure to funeral expenses was unlawful, as Treasury Regulation 6.3.1(c) did not authorise such action and could not override section 43(1) of the PFMA. The procurement process was found to be irregular and did not comply with constitutional and statutory requirements, with the applicant centrally involved in approving payments without adherence to prescribed procedures. The transfer of public funds to a private account was admitted by the applicant as irregular and constituted maladministration. The...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.