South Africa Case Law

Greater Taung Local Municipality v Office of the Public Protector and Others (89658/2018)

Greater Taung Local Municipality v Office of the Public Protector and Others (89658/2018) [2025] ZAGPPHC 776 (1 August 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

89658/2018

Judge

Kooverjie

The court found that Mr Bloem’s answering affidavit should be condoned due to his reasonable explanation for delay and the interests of justice. The complaint to the Public Protector was lodged within the statutory period, as evidenced by meetings in April and September 2014. The court rejected the Municipality’s argument that the protected disclosure complaint was an afterthought, finding a clear link between Mr Bloem’s whistleblowing and his dismissal. The Public Protector had jurisdiction to investigate the complaint under Section 182(1) of the Constitution and the Protected Disclosure Act…

Source excerpt

• Protected Disclosure Act
• Jurisdiction Of Public Protector
• Unfair Dismissal
• Remedial Action
• Condonation
• Occupational Detriment

Air Chefs Soc Limited v Public Protector of Republic of South Africa & Others (31083-2020)

Air Chefs Soc Limited v Public Protector of Republic of South Africa & Others (31083-2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 178 (29 February 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

31083/2020

Judge

L R Adams

The High Court refused leave to appeal after dismissing review proceedings and a counter-application challenging the Public Protector’s remedial action.

• Judicial Review
• Remedial Action
• Leave To Appeal
• Public Protector Powers
• Leave-to-appeal
• Public-protector

Air Chefs SOC Limited v Public Protector of the Republic of South Africa and Others (31083/2020)

Air Chefs SOC Limited v Public Protector of the Republic of South Africa and Others (31083/2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 47 (26 January 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

31083/2020

Judge

Adams

The court found that Air Chefs' withdrawal of the tender award to Mantelli's constituted unlawful administrative action and maladministration. The Public Protector's findings and remedial action were rationally connected to the facts and lawful under the legality doctrine. However, there was no credible evidence of dishonesty or fraud by Air Chefs or SAA officials, and thus no basis for awarding damages beyond reimbursement of proven out-of-pocket expenses. The Public Protector acted within her powers, and her failure to refer the matter for criminal prosecution was justified given the lack o…

Source excerpt

• Public Protector Act
• Judicial Review
• Maladministration
• Remedial Action
• Legality Doctrine
• Irrationality

Kweyama and Others v Special Investigating Unit and Others (2483/2020)

Kweyama and Others v Special Investigating Unit and Others (2483/2020) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1134 (10 October 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2483/2020

Judge

Dosio

The High Court held that the SIU’s report on SABC procurement was not reviewable administrative action because it was only a non-final recommendation.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Ultra Vires
• Fiduciary Duties
• Remedial Action
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Legality Principle

Medical Information Technology South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another v Public Protector and Others (29760/2020)

Medical Information Technology South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another v Public Protector and Others (29760/2020) [2023] ZAGPPHC 50 (31 January 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

29760/2020

Judge

P N Manamela

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate that their interests were directly affected by the findings and recommendations of the Public Protector. The remedial actions were directed at government departments and did not have direct negative implications for the applicants. The findings and remedial actions were rational, lawful, and based on sufficient evidence, particularly regarding procurement irregularities and conflict of interest. The applicants lacked locus standi to challenge the Report, and their application for review was dismissed. The court condoned the late instit…

Source excerpt

• Public Protector Review
• Maladministration
• Conflict Of Interest
• Procurement Irregularities
• Locus Standi
• Remedial Action

Sesoko and Others v Office of the Public Protector and Others (74427/19)

Sesoko and Others v Office of the Public Protector and Others (74427/19) [2022] ZAGPPHC 390 (1 June 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

74427/19

Judge

Kooverjie

The High Court reviewed and set aside the Public Protector’s findings and remedial action over IPID recruitment and procurement irregularities.

• Legality Review
• Procedural Rationality
• Remedial Action
• Maladministration
• Public Procurement
• Appointment Irregularities

Public Protector v Minister of Police and Others (66073/2018)

Public Protector v Minister of Police and Others (66073/2018) [2022] ZAGPPHC 343 (13 May 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

66073/2018

Judge

Davis

The High Court dismissed the Public Protector’s rescission application, finding no basis under Rules 32(1)(b) or 42(1)(a) or (c) of the Uniform Rules.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Remedial Action
• Witness Protection
• Rescission-of-judgment

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

Msibi v Office of the Public Protector and Others (75594/2019)

Msibi v Office of the Public Protector and Others (75594/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 37 (26 January 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

75594/2019

Judge

Vuma

The court found that the Public Protector failed to comply with her constitutional and statutory obligations by not affording the applicant a hearing during the course of her investigation and prior to releasing preliminary findings. Section 7(9)(a) of the Public Protector Act, interpreted in light of section 33(1) of the Constitution and principles of natural justice, creates an obligation to hear an implicated person before adverse findings are made. The Public Protector's process was irrational and unlawful, as she only invited the applicant to respond after preliminary findings were relea…

Source excerpt

• Procedural Fairness
• Remedial Action
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Maladministration
• Principle Of Legality