South Africa Case Law

Minister of Water and Sanitation v Public Protector of the Republic of South Africa and Another (A235/2022; 36050/2019)

Minister of Water and Sanitation v Public Protector of the Republic of South Africa and Another (A235/2022; 36050/2019) [2024] ZAGPPHC 612 (8 July 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A235/2022; 36050/2019

Judges

Ntuli AJ, Millar J, Ceylon AJ

The High Court upheld the appeal, setting aside the Public Protector’s report for procedural unfairness and irrational findings against former Minister Nkwinti.

• Public Protector Act
• Executive Ethics Code
• Principle Of Legality
• Natural Justice
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Public-protector-act

Steenhuisen and Another v Van Rooyen and Others (611/2021)

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

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

611/2021

Judges

Dambuza, Zondi, Plasket, Gorven, Salie

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 wro…

Source excerpt

• Executive Ethics Code
• Wilful Misleading Of Parliament
• Review Of Public Protector Decision
• Parliamentary Accountability

Lekwene and Another v Public Protector of South Africa and Others (1303/2021)

Lekwene and Another v Public Protector of South Africa and Others (1303/2021) [2022] ZANCHC 22 (7 March 2022)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1303/2021

Judges

Mamosebo, SL Erasmus

The court found that the Public Protector acted outside her powers by broadening the scope of her investigation beyond the original complaint and failed to conduct a full, unbiased and proper investigation. The Public Protector did not consider relevant evidence, including the context of the secondment and appointment of Mr Mothibi, and failed to engage with key stakeholders. The remedial action ordered was not authorised in law, as the Premier does not have disciplinary powers over an MEC, and the Public Protector did not afford the applicants a fair hearing regarding the contemplated remedi…

Source excerpt

• Public Protector Act
• Executive Ethics Code
• Remedial Action
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Legality Principle
• Judicial Review

Premier of the Western Cape Province v Public Protector & Another (771/2020)

Premier of the Western Cape Province v Public Protector & Another (771/2020) [2022] ZASCA 16; [2022] 2 All SA 95 (SCA); 2022 (3) SA 121 (SCA) (7 February 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

771/2020

Judges

Van der Merwe, Molemela, Schippers, Nicholls, Mabindla-Boqwana

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the Public Protector materially erred in law by misinterpreting section 16(2)(b) of the Constitution and failing to apply the objective standard required for assessing whether the appellant's tweets constituted unprotected speech. The Public Protector conflated the impact of the tweets with their unlawfulness, relying on subjective public reaction rather than objective analysis. There was no evidence that the tweets incited imminent violence or breached the Executive Ethics Code. The findings and remedial action were not rationally connected to the evide…

Source excerpt

• Executive Ethics Code
• Freedom Of Expression
• Judicial Review
• Material Error Of Law
• Remedial Action
• Right To Dignity

AmaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC v President of the Republic of South Africa (55578/19)

AmaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC v President of the Republic of South Africa (55578/19) [2021] ZAGPPHC 813; [2022] 1 All SA 706 (GP) (2 December 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

55578/19

Judges

D Mlambo, K Matojane, R M Keightley

The High Court held the Executive Ethics Code unconstitutional insofar as it failed to require disclosure of donations to internal party campaign funding.

• Executive Ethics Code
• Disclosure Of Campaign Funding
• Accountability And Transparency
• Conflict Of Interest
• Right Of Access To Information
• Executive-ethics

Van Rooyen v Office of the Public Protector and Others (44020/2018)

Van Rooyen v Office of the Public Protector and Others (44020/2018) [2021] ZAGPPHC 170 (29 March 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

44020/2018

Judge

W Hughes

The court found that the Public Protector's investigation commenced from an incorrect premise, focusing on a period not relevant to the parliamentary question posed to the applicant. The complaint related to events prior to the applicant's appointment as Minister of Finance, while the parliamentary question concerned conduct after taking office. The applicant's response was confined to his official capacity and the relevant period, and there was no evidence that he deliberately misled Parliament. The Public Protector failed to differentiate between the periods and relied on irrelevant evidenc…

Source excerpt

• Executive Ethics Code
• Rationality Review
• Public Protector Powers
• Remedial Action
• Parliamentary Questions
• Costs Order

Gordhan v Public Protector and Others (48521/19)

Gordhan v Public Protector and Others (48521/19) [2019] ZAGPPHC 311; [2019] 3 All SA 743 (GP) (29 July 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

48521/19

Judge

Potterill

The court found that Gordhan had established a prima facie right to the relief sought, as the Public Protector failed to identify special circumstances justifying jurisdiction over complaints older than two years. The remedial orders were vague, contradictory, and could cause irreparable harm to Gordhan's reputation and career if implemented before the review. The balance of convenience favoured suspension, as the events occurred a decade ago and no urgency justified immediate enforcement. The court held that suspending the remedial orders would not undermine the Public Protector's office or…

Source excerpt

• Public Protector Remedial Action
• Interim Interdict
• Separation Of Powers
• Executive Ethics Code
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Jurisdiction Of Public Protector

Minister of Water and Sanitation v Public Protector of the Republic of South Africa and Another (27609/2019)

Minister of Water and Sanitation v Public Protector of the Republic of South Africa and Another (27609/2019) [2019] ZAGPPHC 193 (31 May 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

27609/2019

Judge

C M Sardiwalla

The court found that the applicant was directly implicated by the Public Protector's report and had not been engaged during the preliminary or investigative process, contrary to the principles of natural justice and fair procedure. The refusal to grant an extension to respond to the section 7(9) notice threatened the applicant's right to procedural fairness. The requirements for an interim interdict were satisfied: the applicant had a prima facie right to respond, faced irreparable harm to his reputation if the report was published, and the balance of convenience favoured granting interim rel…

Source excerpt

• Audi Alteram Partem
• Interim Interdict
• Public Protector Powers
• Procedural Fairness
• Executive Ethics Code
• Remedial Action