Singatha Afrika Management Services (Pty) Ltd and Another v City of Cape Town and Another (11031/2016) [2017] ZAWCHC 85 (22 August 2017)

Singatha Afrika Management Services (Pty) Ltd and Another v City of Cape Town and Another (11031/2016) [2017] ZAWCHC 85 (22 August 2017)

The court found that the presiding officer's decision was procedurally unfair and substantively irregular. The applicants were not informed that their request for a meeting had been declined or that the matter had been referred to a presiding officer, depriving them of the opportunity to request an oral hearing as provided for in the City's Abuse Policy. The evidence against the applicants, consisting mainly of the SARS affidavit, was insufficient to reject their version without further investigation or oral evidence. The presiding officer misdirected himself by treating the prima facie evidence as shifting the onus to the applicants, whereas the onus remained on the City. The decision...

Citation
[2017] ZAWCHC 85
Parties
Applicant: Singatha Afrika Management Services (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Unathi Ntsikana Hoyana; Respondent: City of Cape Town; Respondent: Lungelo Mbandazayo
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 August 2017
Case Number
11031/2016
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review granted; presiding officer's ruling set aside and matter remitted for reconsideration.
Judges
A.G. Binns-Ward
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Municipal Supply Chain Management, Procedural Fairness, Onus of Proof, Review of Administrative Action
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Municipal Supply Chain Management Procedural Fairness Onus of Proof Review of Administrative Action

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Singatha Afrika Management Services (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Unathi Ntsikana Hoyana

Applicant

City of Cape Town

Respondent

Lungelo Mbandazayo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the presiding officer's decision procedurally fair under PAJA and the City's Abuse Policy?
  2. 2 Did the presiding officer misdirect himself regarding the onus of proof and the nature of the allegations?
  3. 3 Was the decision rationally connected to the information before the administrator and the reasons given?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the presiding officer's decision was procedurally unfair and substantively irregular. The applicants were not informed that their request for a meeting had been declined or that the matter had been referred to a presiding officer, depriving them of the opportunity to request an oral hearing as provided for in the City's Abuse Policy. The evidence against the applicants, consisting mainly of the SARS affidavit, was insufficient to reject their version without further investigation or oral evidence. The presiding officer misdirected himself by treating the prima facie evidence as shifting the onus to the applicants, whereas the onus remained on the City. The decision...

Court Disposition

Application for review granted; presiding officer's ruling set aside and matter remitted for reconsideration.

Orders

  • The period of 180 days referred to in section 7 of PAJA is extended to the date of institution of proceedings.
  • The ruling made against the applicants by the second respondent, dated 4 September 2015, is reviewed and set aside.