Special Investigating Unit v Czakhele Enterprise (Pty) Ltd and Others (KN/04/2022) [2023] ZAST 14 (3 November 2023)

Special Investigating Unit v Czakhele Enterprise (Pty) Ltd and Others (KN/04/2022) [2023] ZAST 14 (3 November 2023)

The Tribunal found that the twelfth respondent remained a party to the review application as the SIU had not properly withdrawn its claim or deleted the prayer for costs. The SIU's opposition to the application to compel was unfounded, as partial compliance with the notice indicated awareness of the applicable rule, rendering its technical objection meritless. The twelfth respondent was entitled to discovery of documents referenced in the SIU's founding affidavit to answer allegations and oppose costs. Regarding the strike out application, the Tribunal held that certain words and paragraphs in the SIU's answering affidavit were unfounded, defamatory, irrelevant, and prejudicial, and...

Citation
[2023] ZAST 14
Parties
Applicant: Special Investigating Unit; Respondent: Czakhele Enterprise (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Thembisile Ottilia Hlengwa; Respondent: Mashibela Business Enterprise CC; Respondent: Patrick Sibusiso Mabaso; Respondent: Sizakele Mabaso; Respondent: The Department of Basic Education, KwaZulu Natal Province; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council for Education KwaZulu Natal, Province; Respondent: Jenny Naidoo N.O.; Respondent: Lal Rambaran; Respondent: Fusi Ephraihim Radebe; Respondent: Hazel B Khumalo; Respondent: Bhekithemba V Mlambo; Respondent: Phathiwe Patrica Bhengu; Respondent: P Mvelase; Respondent: L J Boik; Respondent: Thulisile Masinga; Respondent: Thulisile P Chiliza; Respondent: NF Mkhize; Respondent: Gugu Hadebe; Respondent: NA Zulu
Court
Special Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 November 2023
Case Number
KN/04/2022
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Interlocutory Applications: Strike Out and Compel Discovery
Outcome
Application to strike out partially upheld with costs; application to compel discovery upheld with costs.
Judges
L T Modiba
Legal Topics
Strike Out Application, Discovery and Inspection, Uniform Rules of Court, Special Tribunal Act, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Strike Out Application Discovery and Inspection Uniform Rules of Court Special Tribunal Act Costs Award

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Special Investigating Unit

Applicant

Czakhele Enterprise (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Thembisile Ottilia Hlengwa

Respondent

Mashibela Business Enterprise CC

Respondent

Patrick Sibusiso Mabaso

Respondent

Sizakele Mabaso

Respondent

The Department of Basic Education, KwaZulu Natal Province

Respondent

Member of the Executive Council for Education KwaZulu Natal, Province

Respondent

Jenny Naidoo N.O.

Respondent

Lal Rambaran

Respondent

Fusi Ephraihim Radebe

Respondent

Hazel B Khumalo

Respondent

Bhekithemba V Mlambo

Respondent

Phathiwe Patrica Bhengu

Respondent

P Mvelase

Respondent

L J Boik

Respondent

Thulisile Masinga

Respondent

Thulisile P Chiliza

Respondent

NF Mkhize

Respondent

Gugu Hadebe

Respondent

NA Zulu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Interlocutory Applications: Strike Out and Compel Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the material sought to be struck out from the SIU's answering affidavit is scandalous, defamatory, irrelevant, and prejudicial to the twelfth respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the twelfth respondent is entitled to an order compelling the SIU to make available specified documents for inspection and copying under Uniform Rule 35(12) and Tribunal Rule 17(4).
  3. 3 Whether the SIU's partial compliance and subsequent amendment of its notice of motion renders the application to compel moot.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the twelfth respondent remained a party to the review application as the SIU had not properly withdrawn its claim or deleted the prayer for costs. The SIU's opposition to the application to compel was unfounded, as partial compliance with the notice indicated awareness of the applicable rule, rendering its technical objection meritless. The twelfth respondent was entitled to discovery of documents referenced in the SIU's founding affidavit to answer allegations and oppose costs. Regarding the strike out application, the Tribunal held that certain words and paragraphs in the SIU's answering affidavit were unfounded, defamatory, irrelevant, and prejudicial, and...

Court Disposition

Application to strike out partially upheld with costs; application to compel discovery upheld with costs.

Orders

  • Specified words and paragraphs in the SIU's answering affidavit are struck out as detailed in the judgment.
  • Within five days, the SIU must make available to the twelfth respondent for inspection and copying those parts of the listed documents relevant to it, as specified in the order.