MEC for Economic Development Gauteng and Another v Sibongile Vilakazi and Others (783/2023) [2024] ZASCA 126; [2024] 4 All SA 344 (SCA) (17 September 2024)

MEC for Economic Development Gauteng and Another v Sibongile Vilakazi and Others (783/2023) [2024] ZASCA 126; [2024] 4 All SA 344 (SCA) (17 September 2024)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the High Court's order was appealable as it had final effect and disposed of substantial issues in the dispute. The matter was not moot, as the judgment would have practical consequences for future appointments and the parties' reputations. The respondents failed to establish the requirements for interim relief: they did not demonstrate a prima facie right, irreparable harm, or a favourable balance of convenience. The period allowed for representations was reasonable given the context and prior correspondence. Allegations of misconduct against the MEC were unsupported and further undermined the relationship. The High Court erred by making final...

Citation
[2024] ZASCA 126
Parties
Appellant: Member of the Executive Council for Economic Development, Gauteng; Appellant: Gauteng Growth and Development Agency SOC Ltd; Respondent: Sibongile Vilakazi; Respondent: Thandiwe Godongwana; Respondent: Lentswe Mokgatle; Respondent: David Maimela; Respondent: Thembisa Fakude
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 September 2024
Case Number
783/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal upheld; interim relief set aside.
Judges
Dambuza, Mocumie, Kgoele, Smith, Dolamo
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Executive Powers, Board Termination, Procedural Fairness, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Interim Interdict Executive Powers Board Termination Procedural Fairness Promotion of Administrative Justice Act

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Member of the Executive Council for Economic Development, Gauteng

Appellant

Gauteng Growth and Development Agency SOC Ltd

Appellant

Sibongile Vilakazi

Respondent

Thandiwe Godongwana

Respondent

Lentswe Mokgatle

Respondent

David Maimela

Respondent

Thembisa Fakude

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the requirements for an interim interdict were satisfied.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court's order is appealable under s 16(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act.
  3. 3 Whether the appeal has become moot due to expiry of board members' terms.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the High Court's order was appealable as it had final effect and disposed of substantial issues in the dispute. The matter was not moot, as the judgment would have practical consequences for future appointments and the parties' reputations. The respondents failed to establish the requirements for interim relief: they did not demonstrate a prima facie right, irreparable harm, or a favourable balance of convenience. The period allowed for representations was reasonable given the context and prior correspondence. Allegations of misconduct against the MEC were unsupported and further undermined the relationship. The High Court erred by making final...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; interim relief set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel where so employed.
  • The order of the High Court is set aside and replaced with: (a) The application is dismissed. (b) Costs shall follow the result of the relief sought in Part B of the notice of motion.