Rabie and Another v Public Protector and Another; Rabie v Mkhwebane and Others (56029/2018; 83971/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 745 (2 November 2021)

Rabie and Another v Public Protector and Another; Rabie v Mkhwebane and Others (56029/2018; 83971/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 745 (2 November 2021)

The court found that the grounds advanced by the applicants did not establish reasonable prospects of success for an appeal. The relief sought in the amended notice of motion had already been considered and dismissed in the original judgment. The delay in launching the review application was unreasonable, even if PAJA's time limits were disregarded, and no convincing reasons were provided to justify condonation. The settlement agreement was relevant only to the findings of the Public Protector, not the court's findings. EY's locus standi had been finally determined by another court and was not open for reconsideration. The allegations of fraud, extortion, and criminality were unsupported...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 745
Parties
Applicant: Virgil Humphrey Rabie; Applicant: Anthea Berenice Rabie; Respondent: The Public Protector: Advocate B Mkhwebane; Respondent: Ernst and Young Advisory Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Ernest and Young (EY); Respondent: Mr John Steenhuisen (The Democratic Alliance); Respondent: Minister Pravin Gordhan (Department of Public Enterprises); Respondent: Advocate Shamila Batohi (The National Prosecuting Authority); Respondent: The South African Police Service – SAPS (The Hawks); Respondent: The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) - Dr Wells/Mr Neave; Respondent: The Law Society of the Northern Provinces; Respondent: Mr Brian Dames (Previous CEO at Eskom)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 November 2021
Case Number
56029/2018; 83971/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Delivered on 3 August 2021.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
N. Janse Van Nieuwenhuizen
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Test, Condonation, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Locus Standi, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Leave to Appeal Test Condonation Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Locus Standi 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Virgil Humphrey Rabie

Applicant

Anthea Berenice Rabie

Applicant

The Public Protector: Advocate B Mkhwebane

Respondent

Ernst and Young Advisory Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Ernest and Young (EY)

Respondent

Mr John Steenhuisen (The Democratic Alliance)

Respondent

Minister Pravin Gordhan (Department of Public Enterprises)

Respondent

Advocate Shamila Batohi (The National Prosecuting Authority)

Respondent

The South African Police Service – SAPS (The Hawks)

Respondent

The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) - Dr Wells/Mr Neave

Respondent

The Law Society of the Northern Provinces

Respondent

Mr Brian Dames (Previous CEO at Eskom)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Delivered on 3 August 2021.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal has reasonable prospects of success under section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether the relief claimed in the amended notice of motion was properly considered.
  3. 3 Whether condonation for the late filing of the review application should have been granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the grounds advanced by the applicants did not establish reasonable prospects of success for an appeal. The relief sought in the amended notice of motion had already been considered and dismissed in the original judgment. The delay in launching the review application was unreasonable, even if PAJA's time limits were disregarded, and no convincing reasons were provided to justify condonation. The settlement agreement was relevant only to the findings of the Public Protector, not the court's findings. EY's locus standi had been finally determined by another court and was not open for reconsideration. The allegations of fraud, extortion, and criminality were unsupported...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, which costs include the costs of two counsel.