Minister of Defence and Others v Dunn (131/06) [2007] ZASCA 75; [2008] 2 All SA 14 (SCA); 2007 (6) SA 52 (SCA); (2007) 28 ILJ 2223 (SCA) (31 May 2007)

Minister of Defence and Others v Dunn (131/06) [2007] ZASCA 75; [2008] 2 All SA 14 (SCA); 2007 (6) SA 52 (SCA); (2007) 28 ILJ 2223 (SCA) (31 May 2007)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the decision to appoint Coetzee and not to promote Dunn was not reviewable under PAJA. The procedures followed by the SANDF, including the use of a special placement board, did not violate the Interim Measures or statutory requirements. Dunn was afforded an opportunity to submit information, and there was no mandatory requirement for interviews. The invitation to an interview did not create a legitimate expectation of an oral hearing, nor was there evidence of unequal treatment. The high court's findings of procedural unfairness and irregularity were based on unsupported inferences and assumptions of dishonesty, which were not justified on the papers....

Citation
[2007] ZASCA 75
Parties
Appellant: Minister of Defence; Appellant: Chief of the South African National Defence Force; Appellant: Secretary of Defence; Respondent: LH Dunn
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 May 2007
Case Number
131/06
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Pretoria High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; application dismissed.
Judges
Harms, Brand, Lewis, Cachalia, Theron
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Appointment and Promotion Procedures, Legitimate Expectation, Compensation Under Paja, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Labour Law Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Appointment and Promotion Procedures Legitimate Expectation Compensation Under Paja Procedural Fairness

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister of Defence

Appellant

Chief of the South African National Defence Force

Appellant

Secretary of Defence

Appellant

LH Dunn

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Pretoria High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision to appoint Coetzee and not to promote Dunn constituted reviewable administrative action under PAJA.
  2. 2 Whether the procedures followed by the SANDF in the appointment process were procedurally fair and transparent.
  3. 3 Whether Dunn had a legitimate expectation to be interviewed for the post.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the decision to appoint Coetzee and not to promote Dunn was not reviewable under PAJA. The procedures followed by the SANDF, including the use of a special placement board, did not violate the Interim Measures or statutory requirements. Dunn was afforded an opportunity to submit information, and there was no mandatory requirement for interviews. The invitation to an interview did not create a legitimate expectation of an oral hearing, nor was there evidence of unequal treatment. The high court's findings of procedural unfairness and irregularity were based on unsupported inferences and assumptions of dishonesty, which were not justified on the papers....

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; application dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including those occasioned by the employment of two counsel.
  • The order of the court below is set aside and replaced with: 'The application is dismissed.'