Public Protector South Africa v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (84074/19) [2021] ZAGPPHC 467 (15 July 2021)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
84074/19
Judge
Mabuse
The High Court refused condonation and leave to appeal, finding the Public Protector had no reasonable prospects of success on the SARS taxpayer-information issue.
Public Protector v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Others (CCT63/20) [2020] ZACC 28; 2021 (5) BCLR 522 (CC); 2022 (1) SA 340 (CC); 83 SATC 313 (15 December 2020)
Court
Constitutional Court
Case number
CCT 63/20
Judges
Mogoeng, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Majiedt, Mathopo, Mhlantla, Theron, Tshiqi, Victor
The Constitutional Court held that the Public Protector's subpoena powers under the Public Protector Act do not override the confidentiality regime of the Tax Administration Act. Section 69(1) of the Tax Administration Act imposes a clear prohibition on the disclosure of taxpayer information, and the exceptions provided do not include compliance with a Public Protector subpoena. The Public Protector did not bring a direct constitutional challenge to the validity of section 69(1), and therefore cannot obtain relief that would effectively set aside the statutory prohibition. The Court found no…
Government Employees Medical Scheme and Others v Public Protector of the Republic of South Africa and Others (1000/19) [2020] ZASCA 111; [2020] 4 All SA 629 (SCA); 2021 (2) SA 114 (SCA) (29 September 2020)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
1000/19
Judges
Ponnan, Mbha, Zondi, Goosen, Mabindla-Boqwana
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Public Protector does not have jurisdiction under sections 6(4) or (5) of the Public Protector Act to investigate the complaint against GEMS. GEMS is a private medical scheme regulated by the Medical Schemes Act and its own rules, serving a restricted class of government employees but not performing a public function or qualifying as a public entity under the Act. The relationship between GEMS and its members is contractual, and complaints are subject to statutory procedures under the Medical Schemes Act, which Mr Ngwato failed to exhaust. The Public…
Commissioner of the South African Revenue Service v Public Protector and Others (84074/19) [2020] ZAGPPHC 33; [2020] 2 All SA 427 (GP); 2020 (4) SA 133 (GP); 82 SATC 279 (23 March 2020)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
84074/19
Judge
P M Mabuse
The court held that SARS officials are both permitted and required by law to withhold taxpayer information from the Public Protector under the 'just cause' proviso in section 11(3) of the Public Protector Act, read with section 69(1) of the Tax Administration Act. The Public Protector's subpoena powers do not extend to taxpayer information, as her powers are regulated and limited by national legislation. The Public Protector acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, and in bad faith by ignoring legal advice, failing to seek a court order, and insisting on disclosure contrary to statutory prohibitions.…
Van der Walt and Others v Magistrate of the District Court Hoopstad and Others (2845/2018) [2019] ZAFSHC 165 (13 September 2019)
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Case number
2845/2018
Judges
L.B.J. Moeng, N.M. Mbhele
Review of a section 152 insolvency enquiry failed; the court upheld the Master’s subpoenas, the magistrate’s exclusion of counsel for conflict, and the arrest warrants.
Sasol South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Nkosi and Another (J1085/16) [2018] ZALCJHB 275 (24 August 2018)
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Case number
J1085/16
Judge
Sedile
The Labour Court upheld a subpoena in an unfair labour practice arbitration and dismissed the employer’s application, finding objections should first have been raised before the commissioner.
Minister of Police and Others v Premier of the Western Cape and Others (CCT 13/13) [2013] ZACC 33; 2013 (12) BCLR 1365 (CC); 2014 (1) SA 1 (CC) (1 October 2013)
Court
Constitutional Court
Case number
CCT 13/13
Judges
Moseneke, Mogoeng, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Madlanga, Mhlantla, Nkabinde, Skweyiya, Van der Westhuizen, Zondo
The Constitutional Court held that the Premier of the Western Cape was constitutionally empowered under section 206(5) to appoint a commission of inquiry into police inefficiency and breakdown in relations between the police and the Khayelitsha community, and that such a commission may lawfully exercise subpoena powers over members of the Police Service. The Court found that the Premier had complied with cooperative governance obligations through extensive engagement with the Minister and Commissioner prior to the commission's appointment. The terms of reference were found to be sufficiently…
