Moyane v Ramaphosa and Others (82287/2018) [2018] ZAGPPHC 835; [2019] 1 All SA 718 (GP) (11 December 2018)

Moyane v Ramaphosa and Others (82287/2018) [2018] ZAGPPHC 835; [2019] 1 All SA 718 (GP) (11 December 2018)

The court found that the President acted lawfully, rationally, and fairly in removing the applicant as SARS Commissioner, having regard to the national interest and the urgent need to restore SARS's credibility and stability. The applicant failed to establish urgency, a prima facie right, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured him. The court held that the President's executive powers under s. 6 of the SARS Act were properly exercised, and that procedural fairness was not required in the circumstances. The applicant's interests were purely personal and financial, and did not outweigh the national interest. The application was vexatious and abusive, and the applicant...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 835
Parties
Applicant: Thomas Swabihi Moyane; Respondent: President Cyril Ramaphosa; Respondent: Minister Pravin Gordhan; Respondent: Judge Robert Nugent N.O; Respondent: Advocate Azhar Bham SC N.O; Respondent: Professor Michael Katz N.O; Respondent: Advocate Mabongi Masilo N.O; Respondent: Mr Vuyo Kahla N.O; Respondent: Minister Tito Mboweni
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 December 2018
Case Number
82287/2018
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interim Relief Following Dismissal of Applicant as SARS Commissioner
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel, on the attorney and client scale.
Judges
H.J Fabricius
Legal Topics
Executive Powers, Principle of Legality, Rationality Review, Interim Interdict, Separation of Powers, Costs in Constitutional Litigation
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Executive Powers Principle of Legality Rationality Review Interim Interdict Separation of Powers +1 more

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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Swabihi Moyane

Applicant

President Cyril Ramaphosa

Respondent

Minister Pravin Gordhan

Respondent

Judge Robert Nugent N.O

Respondent

Advocate Azhar Bham SC N.O

Respondent

Professor Michael Katz N.O

Respondent

Advocate Mabongi Masilo N.O

Respondent

Mr Vuyo Kahla N.O

Respondent

Minister Tito Mboweni

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interim Relief Following Dismissal of Applicant as SARS Commissioner

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the President's decision to remove the applicant as SARS Commissioner was lawful, rational and constitutionally valid.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to urgent interim relief reinstating him as SARS Commissioner pending further proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the SARS Commission and its members should be interdicted from issuing further reports or recommendations.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the President acted lawfully, rationally, and fairly in removing the applicant as SARS Commissioner, having regard to the national interest and the urgent need to restore SARS's credibility and stability. The applicant failed to establish urgency, a prima facie right, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured him. The court held that the President's executive powers under s. 6 of the SARS Act were properly exercised, and that procedural fairness was not required in the circumstances. The applicant's interests were purely personal and financial, and did not outweigh the national interest. The application was vexatious and abusive, and the applicant...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel, on the attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs including the costs of two counsel, and on the attorney and client scale.
  • The application to strike out scandalous and irrelevant allegations against the Third Respondent succeeds with costs.