Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development v Kgoele (A757/2008) [2011] ZAGPPHC 157 (27 May 2011)

Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development v Kgoele (A757/2008) [2011] ZAGPPHC 157 (27 May 2011)

The court found that the issues raised in the appeal had no practical effect or result, as the respondent had already been appointed as a judge and no longer sought the relief originally claimed. The Minister did not seek a costs order, and the appointment to the post in question was no longer a practical option. The court exercised its discretion under section 21A(1) of the Supreme Court Act to dismiss the appeal on the ground that no order it could make would have any practical effect. The factual presumption under section 5(3) of PAJA was not rebutted, but determining this was academic given the changed circumstances. The substitution order under section 8(1)(c)(ii)(aa) of PAJA was...

Citation
[2011] ZAGPPHC 157
Parties
Appellant: Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development; Respondent: AM Kgoele
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 May 2011
Case Number
A757/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed.
Judges
B.R. Du Plessis, W.R.C. Prinsloo, N.M Mngqibisa-Thusi
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Judicial Review, Substitution of Administrative Decision, Presumption of Bad Reason, Practical Effect of Appeal
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Judicial Review Substitution of Administrative Decision Presumption of Bad Reason Practical Effect of Appeal

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development

Appellant

AM Kgoele

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed on the ground that the judgment or order sought will have no practical effect or result.
  2. 2 Whether the presumption under section 5(3) of PAJA was rebutted by the evidence before the court a quo.
  3. 3 Whether the substitution of the Minister's decision by the court a quo was justified as an exceptional case under section 8(1)(c)(ii)(aa) of PAJA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the issues raised in the appeal had no practical effect or result, as the respondent had already been appointed as a judge and no longer sought the relief originally claimed. The Minister did not seek a costs order, and the appointment to the post in question was no longer a practical option. The court exercised its discretion under section 21A(1) of the Supreme Court Act to dismiss the appeal on the ground that no order it could make would have any practical effect. The factual presumption under section 5(3) of PAJA was not rebutted, but determining this was academic given the changed circumstances. The substitution order under section 8(1)(c)(ii)(aa) of PAJA was...

Court Disposition

The appeal is dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.