Siyaduma and Others v Minister of Public Works and Others (26921/2018) [2018] ZAGPPHC 279 (7 May 2018)

Siyaduma and Others v Minister of Public Works and Others (26921/2018) [2018] ZAGPPHC 279 (7 May 2018)

The court found that the Applicants failed to justify the urgency of their application, as the founding affidavit did not provide sufficient details of harm or necessity for immediate relief. The removal of trustees by the Minister was not unlawful, as the process under section 20 of the Trust Property Control Act was not yet finalized, rendering the application premature. The Minister acted as an executive authority, and his decisions were not administrative actions subject to review under PAJA. The Applicants' affidavits contained scandalous and defamatory allegations against the Minister without factual support, warranting a punitive costs order and the striking out of those portions....

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 279
Parties
Applicant: Siyaduma Biniza; Applicant: Lulama Zitha; Applicant: Zakhele Alex Tummy Zitha; Applicant: Nhlanhla Ngubane; Applicant: Alan Baloyi; Respondent: Minister of Public Works; Respondent: Trustees for the time being of the Independent Development Trust; Respondent: Tlhotse Motswaledi; Respondent: Mandisa Fatyela-Lindie; Respondent: Octavia Matshidiso Matloa; Respondent: Morris Mthombeni; Respondent: Nomvula Rakolote; Respondent: Yvonne Mbane; Respondent: Hannelie Kruger; Respondent: Thulasi Nxesi; Respondent: Master of the High Court, Pretoria; Respondent: Phelisa Nkomo; Respondent: Rashid Amod Sadeck Patel; Respondent: Gcwalisile Cynthia Kabanyane
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 May 2018
Case Number
26921/2018
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike Out and Main Application for Urgent Relief
Outcome
Application struck off the roll; costs awarded against Applicants on attorney and client scale, including costs of two counsel; application to strike out granted.
Judges
H.J Fabricius
Legal Topics
Trustee Removal, Urgency Requirements, Costs Punitive Order, Review Under Paja
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Trustee Removal Urgency Requirements Costs Punitive Order Review Under Paja

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Siyaduma Biniza

Applicant

Lulama Zitha

Applicant

Zakhele Alex Tummy Zitha

Applicant

Nhlanhla Ngubane

Applicant

Alan Baloyi

Applicant

Minister of Public Works

Respondent

Trustees for the time being of the Independent Development Trust

Respondent

Tlhotse Motswaledi

Respondent

Mandisa Fatyela-Lindie

Respondent

Octavia Matshidiso Matloa

Respondent

Morris Mthombeni

Respondent

Nomvula Rakolote

Respondent

Yvonne Mbane

Respondent

Hannelie Kruger

Respondent

Thulasi Nxesi

Respondent

Master of the High Court, Pretoria

Respondent

Phelisa Nkomo

Respondent

Rashid Amod Sadeck Patel

Respondent

Gcwalisile Cynthia Kabanyane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Strike Out and Main Application for Urgent Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the removal of trustees by the Minister was lawful under the Trust Deed and relevant statutes.
  2. 2 Whether the application met the requirements for urgency.
  3. 3 Whether the Minister's decisions were administrative and subject to review under PAJA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Applicants failed to justify the urgency of their application, as the founding affidavit did not provide sufficient details of harm or necessity for immediate relief. The removal of trustees by the Minister was not unlawful, as the process under section 20 of the Trust Property Control Act was not yet finalized, rendering the application premature. The Minister acted as an executive authority, and his decisions were not administrative actions subject to review under PAJA. The Applicants' affidavits contained scandalous and defamatory allegations against the Minister without factual support, warranting a punitive costs order and the striking out of those portions....

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll; costs awarded against Applicants on attorney and client scale, including costs of two counsel; application to strike out granted.

Orders

  • The application to strike out the scandalous, vexatious, and defamatory portions of the Applicants' affidavits is granted with costs on the attorney and client scale, including costs of two counsel.
  • The main application is struck off the roll.