Snyman and Others v Minister of Defence and Another (46670/70/08, 46671/08, 46672/08) [2014] ZAGPPHC 72 (28 February 2014)

Snyman and Others v Minister of Defence and Another (46670/70/08, 46671/08, 46672/08) [2014] ZAGPPHC 72 (28 February 2014)

The court found that the prescribed procedure under the Mobility/Exit Mechanism (MEM) was not followed. The applications were refused by an officer without authority, and neither the Chief of the SANDF nor the Minister of Defence considered or decided the applications as required. The refusal was therefore null and void. The applicants were prejudiced by the failure of the second respondent to refer the applications to the correct authority. However, since no valid decision was made by the authorized entities, there was no decision to review. The court ordered that the applications be referred to the Chief of the SANDF for proper consideration and that the applicants be furnished with a...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 72
Parties
Applicant: Anthony J L Snyman; Applicant: Theunis Jacobus van Niekerk; Applicant: Pierre Rautenbach; Respondent: Minister of Defence; Respondent: Chief of the Navy
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 February 2014
Case Number
46670/08, 46671/08, 46672/08
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Applications for review dismissed; respondents ordered to refer applications for proper consideration and to pay costs on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
BAM
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Fair Labour Practices, Constructive Dismissal, Review of Administrative Action
Administrative Law Labour Law Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Fair Labour Practices Constructive Dismissal 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

Anthony J L Snyman

Applicant

Theunis Jacobus van Niekerk

Applicant

Pierre Rautenbach

Applicant

Minister of Defence

Respondent

Chief of the Navy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal of the applicants' Mobility/Exit Mechanism (MEM) applications was procedurally fair and rational.
  2. 2 Whether the correct authority considered and decided the MEM applications as prescribed.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have locus standi after resignation, based on constructive dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the prescribed procedure under the Mobility/Exit Mechanism (MEM) was not followed. The applications were refused by an officer without authority, and neither the Chief of the SANDF nor the Minister of Defence considered or decided the applications as required. The refusal was therefore null and void. The applicants were prejudiced by the failure of the second respondent to refer the applications to the correct authority. However, since no valid decision was made by the authorized entities, there was no decision to review. The court ordered that the applications be referred to the Chief of the SANDF for proper consideration and that the applicants be furnished with a...

Court Disposition

Applications for review dismissed; respondents ordered to refer applications for proper consideration and to pay costs on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The three applications for review in cases numbers 46670/08, 46671/08 and 46672/08 are dismissed.
  • The second respondent is ordered to refer the applications of the three applicants in terms of the provisions of MEM to the Chief of the SANDF within 10 days from the date of this order.