Case Summary: SIU v Inqaba Yokulinda and Others

SIU v Inqaba Yokulinda and Others

URL

https://lawlibrary.org.za/akn/za/judgment/zast/2023/1/eng@2023-01-03

Citations

(GP/01/2022) [2023] ZAST 1

Date of judgment

3 January 2023

Keyword(s):1

Application, applicant, respondent, special tribunal, special investigating unit, interdict, disputed property, order, striking out, rescission, extension, preserve, preservation order, grant funding, construction, service provider, proposal, feasibility study, grant agreement, performance, progress reports, bank statements, evidence, review application, case management meeting, unlawful activities, interests of justice, fairness, equity, interpretation, power to extend, good cause, consent, lapsed, malpractice, maladministration, state institutions, settlement agreement, repay monies, irregular, fraudulent, prejudice, delay, explanation, ex parte application, default judgement, proceeds from unlawful activities, condonation

Case type2

Four applications

Result

Condonation for late filing of the Extension Application by the SIU was granted, and the Preservation Order was revived. The Reconsideration Applications, the Application to Strike Out and the Application for Rescission were all dismissed.

Flynote3

Special Tribunal Proceedings – Extension of time – the Special Tribunal may, on good cause shown, extend any time period stipulated in an order made by the Special Tribunal, and condone non-compliance with the Rules

Legislation and International Instruments4

• Rules 14, 12 and 24 of the Special Tribunal’s Rules

Cases cited as authority5

n/a

Facts6

The first respondent (Yokulinda) had applied for grant funding from the thirteenth respondent, the National Lotteries Commission (NLC), for the construction of athletic tracks. Once the funding was approved, the fourth respondent (Unicus) received a portion of the grant but did not perform in terms of the Grant Agreement. Yokulinda subsequently applied for and was granted additional funding from the NLC without being required to furnish any progress reports. The applicant, the Special Investigating Unit (SIU), found evidence that monies from the Unicus bank account has been utilised for various unlawful expenses and following the investigation, the SIU applied for the preservation order in the main application, to interdict or preserve the property and assets of the fifth, sixth, and seventh respondents for their involvement in the unlawful activities. The Special Tribunal had granted the preservation order pending the institution of a review application by the SIU within 30 days of the date of the order (Preservation Order). As the SIU could not institute the review within the time prescribed by the order, an extension application was submitted in terms of Tribunal Rule 14 to condone non-compliance with the timeframes and an extension to file the review application (Extension Application). The first to sixth, ninth and twelfth respondents applied for the Preservation Order to be reconsidered (Reconsideration Applications). Unicus and the fifth respondent applied to have parts of the founding affidavit struck out on the basis that it constituted inadmissible hearsay evidence (Application to Strike Out), and the seventh respondent sought to rescind the Preservation Order (Rescission Application).

Summary7

The Special Tribunal was asked to determine whether Tribunal Rule 14 permitted the Special Tribunal to condone non-compliance with time frames prescribed by an order, in this instance the Preservation Order. The Special Tribunal was also asked to determine whether there were any merits to the respondents objecting to the Preservation Order, whether the portions of the founding affidavit were inadmissible, and whether the Preservation Order as it related to the seventh respondent ought to be rescinded.

Decision/ Judgment8

The Special Tribunal condoned the late filing of the Extension Application sought by the SIU in terms of Tribunal Rule 14, and the Preservation Order was revived. The SIU was ordered to institute the review proceedings within 30 days of the present order. The Special Tribunal, however, dismissed the Reconsideration Applications, Application to Strike Out, and Rescission Application sought by the various respondents.

Basis of the decision9

In terms of the Extension Application, the Special Tribunal was satisfied with the SIU’s explanation regarding the reasons for the delay and found that, in the interests of justice, the Extension Application ought to be granted. The Special Tribunal also held that Rule 14 ought to be interpreted to enable the Special Tribunal to extend any period, on good cause shown, including any period stipulated by the Special Tribunal in an order.

In terms of the Reconsideration Applications, the Special Tribunal found that the objections raised by the respondents did not take their respective cases any further, and were therefore dismissed.

In terms of the Application to Strike Out, the Special Tribunal found these to be misguided and without merit and was therefore also dismissed.

Finally, in terms of the Rescission Application, the Special Tribunal found that the respondent had relied on the incorrect rules and, as it was already admitted that unlawful funds had been used to purchase a car for the respondent, the application was also found to be misguided and dismissed.

Reported by

Date

African Legal Information Institute (AfricanLII)

3 January 2023