Winvoel and Others v MEC for Social Development, Northern Cape and Others (1014/09) [2011] ZANCHC 31 (21 October 2011)

Winvoel and Others v MEC for Social Development, Northern Cape and Others (1014/09) [2011] ZANCHC 31 (21 October 2011)

The court found that the applicants made proper applications for drought relief grants on 15 May 2004, which were not considered or decided upon by the respondents. The evidence of the applicants, supported by independent witnesses, was preferred over the contradictory and hearsay evidence of the respondents. The delay in bringing the application was excusable due to the applicants’ lack of sophistication and the logistical difficulties of organizing a class action among indigent persons. The court held that the failure to take a decision is reviewable under PAJA and that the 180-day period should be extended and non-compliance condoned. The respondents are directed to consider and decide...

Citation
[2011] ZANCHC 31
Parties
Applicant: Emely Windvoël and 100 Other Applicants described in Annexure “A” to the Notice of Motion; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council, Department of Social Development, Northern Cape; Respondent: The Disaster Relief Fund Board; Respondent: Upper Karoo Advice and Development Agencies (UKADA); Respondent: National Minister of Social Development
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 October 2011
Case Number
1014/09
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted. Respondents directed to consider and decide applicants’ drought relief applications within 60 days; written reasons to be furnished for any refusal within 30 days; extension and condonation of the 180-day period under PAJA; costs awarded against second and fourth respondents jointly and severally.
Judges
BM Pakati
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Failure to Take Decision, Judicial Review, Extension of Time, Social Grants, Class Action Procedure
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Failure to Take Decision Judicial Review Extension of Time Social Grants Class Action Procedure

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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emely Windvoël and 100 Other Applicants described in Annexure “A” to the Notice of Motion

Applicant

Member of the Executive Council, Department of Social Development, Northern Cape

Respondent

The Disaster Relief Fund Board

Respondent

Upper Karoo Advice and Development Agencies (UKADA)

Respondent

National Minister of Social Development

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents failed to consider and decide the applicants’ applications for drought relief grants as required by law.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in bringing the application should be condoned and the 180-day period under PAJA extended.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants’ applications for drought relief were properly submitted and overlooked by the authorities.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants made proper applications for drought relief grants on 15 May 2004, which were not considered or decided upon by the respondents. The evidence of the applicants, supported by independent witnesses, was preferred over the contradictory and hearsay evidence of the respondents. The delay in bringing the application was excusable due to the applicants’ lack of sophistication and the logistical difficulties of organizing a class action among indigent persons. The court held that the failure to take a decision is reviewable under PAJA and that the 180-day period should be extended and non-compliance condoned. The respondents are directed to consider and decide...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Respondents directed to consider and decide applicants’ drought relief applications within 60 days; written reasons to be furnished for any refusal within 30 days; extension and condonation of the 180-day period under PAJA; costs awarded against second and fourth respondents jointly and severally.

Orders

  • The first, second and fourth respondents are directed to consider and decide upon the applicants’ applications for drought relief made on 15 May 2004 by not later than sixty (60) ordinary days of this order.
  • In the event of the first, second and fourth respondents finding that the applicants or some of them are not entitled to drought relief, they are directed to furnish written reasons for their decision to the applicants’ attorneys of record by not later than thirty (30) ordinary days of such decision.