Moeketsi v Gauteng Tourism Authority and Another (34046/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 816 (1 December 2021)

Moeketsi v Gauteng Tourism Authority and Another (34046/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 816 (1 December 2021)

The court found that the law is settled regarding the permissibility of collateral challenges to unlawful administrative decisions, and that such challenges are not restricted to private citizens. The applicant failed to provide any authority to the contrary and conceded that there are no conflicting judgments on the issue. The court held that the MEC's decision was unlawful and in violation of the principle of legality, and that the applicant's attempt to circumvent proper legal process by persuading the MEC to interfere with the disciplinary chairperson's decision was impermissible. The grounds of appeal were found to lack merit, and there were no reasonable prospects of success. The...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 816
Parties
Applicant: Montsheng Sarah Moeketsi; Respondent: Gauteng Tourism Authority; Respondent: MEC for Economic Development, Agriculture, Environment and Rural Development-Gauteng
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 December 2021
Case Number
34046/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Main Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
SKOSANA
Legal Topics
Collateral Challenge, Principle of Legality, Review Application, Costs Award
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Collateral Challenge Principle of Legality Review Application Costs Award

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Montsheng Sarah Moeketsi

Applicant

Gauteng Tourism Authority

Respondent

MEC for Economic Development, Agriculture, Environment and Rural Development-Gauteng

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Main Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court misdirected itself by allowing a collateral challenge to the validity of the MEC's decision in the first respondent's opposing affidavit.
  2. 2 Whether the decision of the MEC could only be set aside through a review or counter application.
  3. 3 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success for the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the law is settled regarding the permissibility of collateral challenges to unlawful administrative decisions, and that such challenges are not restricted to private citizens. The applicant failed to provide any authority to the contrary and conceded that there are no conflicting judgments on the issue. The court held that the MEC's decision was unlawful and in violation of the principle of legality, and that the applicant's attempt to circumvent proper legal process by persuading the MEC to interfere with the disciplinary chairperson's decision was impermissible. The grounds of appeal were found to lack merit, and there were no reasonable prospects of success. The...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.