Special Tribunal of South Africa

Three special pleas were adjudicated – firstly, that the Special Tribunal is not a High Court and does not have jurisdiction to entertain the SIU’s claims – secondly, judicial review does not constitute civil proceedings as envisaged in subsec 8(2) of the SIU Act – thirdly, the SIU should have brought review proceedings in terms of PAJA – the three special pleas were dismissed.

Administrative Law – legality review – determination of just and equitable relief in terms of s 172(1)(b) of the Constitution – the burden of proof.

Application for monetary judgment – whether the respondents submitted excessive claims to the second applicant in respect of the learner scholar transport contract – whether the applicants have made out a case for monetary relief sought against the respondents.

Application for monetary judgment – whether the respondents submitted excessive claims to the second applicant in respect of the learner scholar transport contract – whether the applicants have made out a case for monetary relief sought against the respondents.

Administrative law – reviewable decision – a decision that breaches the principle of legality is reviewable if it is not authorised by an approved policy or law.

Civil proceedings – application for absolution from the instance – absolution may be granted where the Special Tribunal has failed to make out a prima facie case for the relief sought.

Special Tribunal – Consent order – Recovery of public funds – First respondent ordered to pay R81,502,073.62 to the Department of Water and Sanitation within five court days – No order as to costs.

Special Tribunal – condonation of non‑compliance with procedural rules; urgent hearing – interim interdict restraining pension payout pending proceedings; interlocutory relief immediate effect; reconsideration under Tribunal Rule 12(9); publication embargo until service.

Application for leave to appeal to the Full Court of the High Court Division with jurisdiction against this Tribunal’s judgment - Whether s 8(7) of the Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Act 74 of 1996 (“the Act”) and the Regulations and Rules proclaimed in terms of the Act provides for the right to appeal against the Tribunals’ decisions on leave being granted by the Tribunal - Whether s 16 and 17 of the Superior Courts Act are applicable to determine applications for leave to appeal in the Tribunal.

Held: In terms of s 8(7), parties enjoy an automatic right to appeal to the Full Court of the High Court Division with jurisdiction against this Tribunal’s judgment. s 16 and 17 of the Superior Courts Act are inapplicable to determine applications for leave to appeal in the Tribunal.

Special Investigating Unit and Special Tribunals Act s 8(7) – automatic right of appeal to Full Court of High Court – leave to appeal unnecessary where statutory right exists; reliance on Caledon River Properties precedent; costs reserved to appeal.

Special Investigating Unit and Special Tribunals Act s 8(7) – automatic right of appeal to Full Court – effect on Tribunal applications – dismissal where appellate remedy exists – costs reserved to appeal.

Procurement law – emergency procurement procedures – failure to meet emergency procurement requirements and remedy for non-compliance includes forfeiture of preserved assets.

Application for a rule nisi to preserve property and appoint a curator bonis in terms of Tribunal Rule 24 - factors to be taken into account when exercising a discretion to appoint a curator bonis to take control of and preserve the value of immovable property in terms of Tribunal Rule 24 read with Tribunal Rules 27 and 2

Held: when exercising a discretion to appoint a curator bonis, the Tribunal ought to have regard to the circumstances of each case. The overriding consideration is the purpose for which the preservation order is sought and whether the appointment of a curator bonis gives effect to that purpose.

Review application – access to record of the impugned decision. Whether the respondent in a self-review application is entitled to a record of the impugned decision in terms of Uniform Rule 53(1)(b) or whether it should seek discovery of the record in terms of Tribunal Rule 17(4) read with Uniform Rule 35(13), (1) and (2).

Procurement law – emergency procurement procedures – reviewing and setting aside an irregular and unlawful contract, and just and equitable relief.

Review and setting aside of procurement contract due to procurement irregularities – just and equitable relief.

Court procedure – application for a postponement of trial – reasons for postponement and consideration of prejudice.

Review of the contract the second defendant awarded to the first defendant for the procurement of Personal Protective Equipment supplies.

Application for a postponement of the trial to compel witnesses to file witness statements and secure their attendance at the trial by way of subpoena.

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.

Procurement law – review of procurement transactions and payments for the supply of personal protective equipment – non-compliance with emergency procurement procedures – remedy - condictio ob turpem vel inustam causam – forfeiture of preserved assets.

Public procurement regulations – legality of tender extension – whether funds earned from irregular and unlawful tender may be retained.

Review of the extension of a tender - whether the extension of the tender was irregular and unlawful - whether services were rendered under the extended tender - whether it is just and equitable for the respondent to be permitted to retain all the funds it earned from the extended tender.

Special Investigation Units and Special Tribunals - maladministration of State institutions – fraudulent schemes – law of evidence – balance of probabilities.

Civil trial – damages arising from two fraudulent schemes allegedly master minded by the first defendant, an assistant State Attorney, and perpetrated by all the defendants against the second plaintiff – the plaintiffs have established on a balance of probabilities that the defendants have perpetrated the fraudulent schemes.