Moyane v Ramaphosa and Others (82287/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 573 (11 December 2019)

Moyane v Ramaphosa and Others (82287/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 573 (11 December 2019)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish any prima facie right to reinstatement or interim relief. The President acted within his executive powers under s. 6 of the SARS Act, lawfully and rationally, in the national interest, and after considering the SARS Commission's report. The applicant's interests were purely personal and financial, outweighed by the urgent need to restore SARS's credibility and stability. The applicant had alternative remedies and failed to participate meaningfully in the inquiry. The application was not urgent, lacked substantive grounds, and was an abuse of process. The court dismissed the application with punitive costs, finding the applicant's...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 573
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 2019
Case Number
82287/2018
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment on Urgent Interim Relief
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
H.J Fabricius
Legal Topics
Executive Powers, Principle of Legality, Rationality Review, Interim Interdict, Costs in Constitutional Litigation, Separation of Powers
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Executive Powers Principle of Legality Rationality Review Interim Interdict Costs in Constitutional Litigation +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 4 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 / Judgment on Urgent Interim Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to urgent interim relief reinstating him as SARS Commissioner pending final determination of his removal.
  2. 2 Whether the President's decision to remove the applicant was lawful, rational, and constitutionally valid.
  3. 3 Whether the SARS Commission and disciplinary inquiry were lawfully established and conducted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish any prima facie right to reinstatement or interim relief. The President acted within his executive powers under s. 6 of the SARS Act, lawfully and rationally, in the national interest, and after considering the SARS Commission's report. The applicant's interests were purely personal and financial, outweighed by the urgent need to restore SARS's credibility and stability. The applicant had alternative remedies and failed to participate meaningfully in the inquiry. The application was not urgent, lacked substantive grounds, and was an abuse of process. The court dismissed the application with punitive costs, finding the applicant's...

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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