Sesoko and Others v Office of the Public Protector and Others (74427/19) [2022] ZAGPPHC 390 (1 June 2022)

Sesoko and Others v Office of the Public Protector and Others (74427/19) [2022] ZAGPPHC 390 (1 June 2022)

The court found that the Public Protector's process in arriving at the findings and remedial action was procedurally irrational. The Public Protector failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the applicants' representations and did not properly consider material evidence. The findings were not rationally connected to the evidence before her, and the remedial action imposed was vague, legally impermissible, and exceeded her authority. The procedural irregularities were material and affected the outcome of the decision. Consequently, the findings and remedial action in the Public Protector's report were reviewed and set aside.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 390
Parties
Applicant: Matthews Sesoko; Applicant: Robert McBride; Applicant: Nomkhosi Netsianda; Applicant: Marianne Moroasui; Applicant: Baatseba Motlhale; Applicant: Innocent Khuba; Applicant: David De Bruin; Applicant: Thereza Botha; Respondent: Office of the Public Protector; Respondent: Busisiwe Mkhwebane; Respondent: Independent Police Investigative Directorate; Respondent: Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Minister of Police
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 June 2022
Case Number
74427/19
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
The application for review was granted. The findings and remedial action imposed by the Public Protector in her report were set aside.
Judges
Kooverjie
Legal Topics
Legality Review, Procedural Rationality, Remedial Action, Maladministration, Public Procurement, Appointment Irregularities
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Legality Review Procedural Rationality Remedial Action Maladministration Public Procurement Appointment Irregularities

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthews Sesoko

Applicant

Robert McBride

Applicant

Nomkhosi Netsianda

Applicant

Marianne Moroasui

Applicant

Baatseba Motlhale

Applicant

Innocent Khuba

Applicant

David De Bruin

Applicant

Thereza Botha

Applicant

Office of the Public Protector

Respondent

Busisiwe Mkhwebane

Respondent

Independent Police Investigative Directorate

Respondent

Fidelity Security Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Minister of Police

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Public Protector's findings and remedial action were irrational and unlawful.
  2. 2 Whether the Public Protector failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting applicants' representations and evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the remedial action imposed by the Public Protector was authorized and legally permissible.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Public Protector's process in arriving at the findings and remedial action was procedurally irrational. The Public Protector failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the applicants' representations and did not properly consider material evidence. The findings were not rationally connected to the evidence before her, and the remedial action imposed was vague, legally impermissible, and exceeded her authority. The procedural irregularities were material and affected the outcome of the decision. Consequently, the findings and remedial action in the Public Protector's report were reviewed and set aside.

Court Disposition

The application for review was granted. The findings and remedial action imposed by the Public Protector in her report were set aside.

Orders

  • The findings and remedial action in the Public Protector's Report No. 41 of 2019/2020 dated 16 September 2019 are reviewed and set aside.
  • Condonation for late filing of affidavits is granted.