Case Summary: Special Investigating Unit and Others v Lekabe

Special Investigating Unit and Others v Lekabe

URL

https://lawlibrary.org.za/za/judgment/special-tribunal-south-africa/2022/32

Citations

(GP 9 of 2019) [2022] ZAST 32 (09 June 2022)

Date of judgment

9 June 2022

Keyword(s):1

Special pleas, convenience, administrative action, locus standi, prescription, non-joinder, misjoinder, cause of action, separation application, speedy and cost-effective finalisation of litigation

Case type2

Application

Result

Dismissed and costs stood over

Flynote3

Court rules – application for separation – special pleas may only be separately heard if there is sufficient evidence to show that it is convenient to do so

Legislation and International Instruments4

• Section 5(5) of the Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Act

• Section 1 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act

• Section 12(3) of the Prescription Act

• Rule 33(4) of the Uniform Rules of the Court

Cases cited as authority5

• SIU v F Mpofana & 72 Others, Case No. GP 13/2021

Facts6

In response to an action brought by the plaintiffs against the defendant for unlawful and irregular conduct at the Office of the State Attorney, the defendant filed eight special pleas and applied for separation of the special pleas from the main trial in terms of Rule 33(4) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The application was opposed by the plaintiffs. The eight special pleas related to various aspects of the plaintiffs’ case, namely: non-joinder of Kajee, misjoinder of the defendant, prescription of two of the claims, that parts of the particulars of claim lacked necessary averments to sustain any cause of action, that plaintiffs’ claim was based on administrative action that had not been set aside as legally invalid, that the first plaintiff lacked authority to act on behalf of the other plaintiffs, and was not empowered to bring the current action.

Summary7

The tribunal was called upon to determine whether it would be appropriate to grant the application for separation of the special pleas from the plea over on the merits in terms of Rule 33(4), and also to determine the eight special pleas in the event that the separation application was granted.

Decision/ Judgment8

The application for separation of the special pleas was dismissed and the costs were ordered to be stood over for later determination.

Basis of the decision9

The tribunal held that it had a duty, in terms of Rule 33(4), to ensure that a separation of issues would be convenient and proper, and that a party seeking such separation was required to place sufficient information or evidence before the tribunal to enable it to exercise its discretion properly and meaningfully. The tribunal found that none of the special pleas could be sustained and could therefore not be conveniently heard separately. Importantly, the tribunal found the defendant’s challenge to the first plaintiff’s locus standi and authority to represent the other plaintiffs most worrying in spite of clear provisions in the Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Act and recent pronouncements of the tribunal on this issue, and noted that such a challenge resulted in an escalation of unnecessary litigation costs and delayed the finalisation of matters.

Reported by

Date

African Legal Information Institute (AfricanLII)

13 June 2022