Steenhuisen and Another v Van Rooyen and Others (611/2021) [2023] ZASCA 78 (29 May 2023)

Steenhuisen and Another v Van Rooyen and Others (611/2021) [2023] ZASCA 78 (29 May 2023)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the Public Protector's investigation and decision were not rationally related to the parliamentary question posed. The question specifically referred to the period 'since taking office', and both the Public Protector and Mr Van Rooyen initially interpreted it as such. However, the Public Protector's investigation and conclusion disregarded her own interpretation and relied on evidence and media reports relating to a period not covered by the question. The complaint was therefore not related to the actual question, and the Public Protector applied the wrong test for wilful misleading. The irregularities in the question, complaint, and investigation...

Citation
[2023] ZASCA 78
Parties
Applicant: John Henry Steenhuisen; Applicant: Kevin Mileham; Respondent: David Douglas Des Van Rooyen; Respondent: The Office of the Public Protector; Respondent: The Public Protector; Respondent: President of the Republic of South Africa
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 May 2023
Case Number
611/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal After Refusal by the High Court
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
Dambuza, Zondi, Plasket, Gorven, Salie
Legal Topics
Executive Ethics Code, Wilful Misleading of Parliament, Review of Public Protector Decision, Parliamentary Accountability
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Executive Ethics Code Wilful Misleading of Parliament Review of Public Protector Decision Parliamentary Accountability

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

John Henry Steenhuisen

Applicant

Kevin Mileham

Applicant

David Douglas Des Van Rooyen

Respondent

The Office of the Public Protector

Respondent

The Public Protector

Respondent

President of the Republic of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal After Refusal by the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Public Protector's decision that Mr Van Rooyen wilfully misled Parliament was rationally related to the parliamentary question posed.
  2. 2 Whether the investigation and report of the Public Protector were lawful and rational.
  3. 3 Whether the parliamentary question was ambiguous and whether its interpretation affected the outcome.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the Public Protector's investigation and decision were not rationally related to the parliamentary question posed. The question specifically referred to the period 'since taking office', and both the Public Protector and Mr Van Rooyen initially interpreted it as such. However, the Public Protector's investigation and conclusion disregarded her own interpretation and relied on evidence and media reports relating to a period not covered by the question. The complaint was therefore not related to the actual question, and the Public Protector applied the wrong test for wilful misleading. The irregularities in the question, complaint, and investigation...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.