Special Investigating Unit v Hlatshwayo and Others (GP/20/2020) [2021] ZAST 6 (15 June 2021)

Special Investigating Unit v Hlatshwayo and Others (GP/20/2020) [2021] ZAST 6 (15 June 2021)

The Special Tribunal dismissed the first respondent's application for postponement, finding no sufficient cause or prejudice demonstrated and noting his repeated dilatory conduct. The application to compel discovery was dismissed because the applicant was not in possession of the requested documents, the requirements for discovery under the relevant rules were not met, and the respondent failed to seek the necessary directive for discovery in application proceedings. The Tribunal found that the applicant had established a prima facie case of procurement irregularity, a reasonable apprehension of harm to public funds, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the interim...

Citation
[2021] ZAST 6
Parties
Applicant: Special Investigating Unit; Respondent: Jacob Basil Hlatshwayo; Respondent: Government Employees Pension Fund; Respondent: Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development; Respondent: Director General of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development
Court
Special Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 June 2021
Case Number
GP/20/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment on Three Interlocutory Applications: Postponement, Discovery, and Interim Interdict
Outcome
The applications for postponement and to compel discovery are dismissed with costs. The interim interdict restraining payment of the first respondent's pension benefits is granted pending final determination of the action.
Judges
L T Modiba
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Discovery Procedure, Public Procurement Irregularity, Special Tribunal Rules, Locus Standi, Costs Order
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Interim Interdict Discovery Procedure Public Procurement Irregularity Special Tribunal Rules Locus Standi Costs Order

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Special Investigating Unit

Applicant

Jacob Basil Hlatshwayo

Respondent

Government Employees Pension Fund

Respondent

Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development

Respondent

Director General of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment on Three Interlocutory Applications: Postponement, Discovery, and Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent is entitled to a postponement to file a replying affidavit in the application to compel discovery.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent is entitled to compel discovery of documents from the applicant and third respondent in terms of the Special Tribunal Rules and Uniform Rules of Court.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interim interdict restraining payment of the first respondent's pension benefits pending final determination of the action.

Ratio Decidendi

The Special Tribunal dismissed the first respondent's application for postponement, finding no sufficient cause or prejudice demonstrated and noting his repeated dilatory conduct. The application to compel discovery was dismissed because the applicant was not in possession of the requested documents, the requirements for discovery under the relevant rules were not met, and the respondent failed to seek the necessary directive for discovery in application proceedings. The Tribunal found that the applicant had established a prima facie case of procurement irregularity, a reasonable apprehension of harm to public funds, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the interim...

Court Disposition

The applications for postponement and to compel discovery are dismissed with costs. The interim interdict restraining payment of the first respondent's pension benefits is granted pending final determination of the action.

Orders

  • The application for postponement is dismissed with costs.
  • The first respondent's application to compel discovery is dismissed with costs.