Ntswahlana and Others v White Commission (1371/2000) [2002] ZAECHC 3 (21 February 2002)

Ntswahlana and Others v White Commission (1371/2000) [2002] ZAECHC 3 (21 February 2002)

The court found that the delay in instituting review proceedings was not unreasonable, as the applicants faced difficulties in obtaining the record and findings from the Commission, which had ceased to operate. All applicants were properly joined, being identifiable from the annexure and the record. Leave to sue the first respondent as a judge was not required, as he was cited in his capacity as chairman of the Commission, not in his judicial capacity. The Commission's decision constituted administrative action subject to review. The proceedings before the Commission were procedurally unfair and unreasonable: the Commission relied on hearsay and untested allegations from Brigadier...

Citation
[2002] ZAECHC 3
Parties
Applicant: N J Ntswahlana and 252 Others; Respondent: The Chairman of the White Commission; Respondent: The Minister of Safety and Security; Respondent: The President of the Republic of South Africa; Respondent: Government of the Republic of South Africa
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 February 2002
Case Number
1371/2000
Procedural Posture
Review Application / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application granted. The Commission's decision is reviewed and set aside; respondents are interdicted from implementing it; costs awarded to applicants.
Judges
L.E. Leach, J.J. Nepgen
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Unreasonable Delay, Review of Administrative Action, Unfair Labour Practice, Onus of Proof
Administrative Law Labour Law Procedural Fairness Unreasonable Delay Review of Administrative Action Unfair Labour Practice Onus of Proof

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

N J Ntswahlana and 252 Others

Applicant

The Chairman of the White Commission

Respondent

The Minister of Safety and Security

Respondent

The President of the Republic of South Africa

Respondent

Government of the Republic of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants unreasonably delayed in instituting review proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether all applicants were properly before the court.
  3. 3 Whether leave to sue the first respondent as a judge was required.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay in instituting review proceedings was not unreasonable, as the applicants faced difficulties in obtaining the record and findings from the Commission, which had ceased to operate. All applicants were properly joined, being identifiable from the annexure and the record. Leave to sue the first respondent as a judge was not required, as he was cited in his capacity as chairman of the Commission, not in his judicial capacity. The Commission's decision constituted administrative action subject to review. The proceedings before the Commission were procedurally unfair and unreasonable: the Commission relied on hearsay and untested allegations from Brigadier...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The Commission's decision is reviewed and set aside; respondents are interdicted from implementing it; costs awarded to applicants.

Orders

  • The decision of the first respondent in hearing 114, finding the promotions of the applicants to be irregular and setting aside such promotions, is reviewed and set aside.
  • The second and fourth respondents are interdicted and restrained from implementing the aforesaid decision of the first respondent.