Symmington v South African revenue Services (60723/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1181 (22 September 2017)

Symmington v South African revenue Services (60723/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1181 (22 September 2017)

The court found that the disciplinary charges against the applicant related exclusively to his conduct during the events of 18 October 2016 and not to any protected disclosures made thereafter. There was no factual basis for the claim that the disciplinary action or any suspension was on account of protected disclosures. The applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to the relief sought, nor did he demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured granting an interim interdict. The broader political context and constitutional issues raised were not pleaded and were irrelevant to the determination of the urgent application. The applicant retains statutory...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 1181
Parties
Applicant: Vlok Symmington; Respondent: South African Revenue Services
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 September 2017
Case Number
60723/2017
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Application (part A) Prior to Disciplinary Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Fabricius
Legal Topics
Protected Disclosure, Occupational Detriment, Disciplinary Procedure, Interim Interdict, Constitutional Rights
Labour Law Administrative Law Protected Disclosure Occupational Detriment Disciplinary Procedure Interim Interdict Constitutional Rights

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vlok Symmington

Applicant

South African Revenue Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Application (part A) Prior to Disciplinary Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interim interdict preventing disciplinary action, suspension, or occupational detriment pending the outcome of Part B.
  2. 2 Whether the disciplinary charges are brought on account of protected disclosures under the Protected Disclosures Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie right to the relief sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the disciplinary charges against the applicant related exclusively to his conduct during the events of 18 October 2016 and not to any protected disclosures made thereafter. There was no factual basis for the claim that the disciplinary action or any suspension was on account of protected disclosures. The applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to the relief sought, nor did he demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured granting an interim interdict. The broader political context and constitutional issues raised were not pleaded and were irrelevant to the determination of the urgent application. The applicant retains statutory...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application for interim interdict is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application, including costs of two counsel.