Corruption, fraud and illicit money flows

Civil Remedies – Injunctions and interdicts – Interlocutory

Civil Procedure – Appeals and reviews – Judicial Review

Civil Procedure – Parties – Joinder

Civil Procedure – Pleadings – Amendment to Pleadings

Civil Procedure – Appeals and reviews – Administrative review

Civil Procedure – Orders – Condonation

Special Tribunal – Administrative Law – Government Contracting

Civil Remedies – Special Tribunal – Ex Parte Order

Civil Procedure – Parties - Joinder

Civil Procedure – Pleadings – Amendment to Pleadings

Civil Procedure – Institution of Proceedings – Cause of action

Civil Procedure – Special Tribunal – Jurisdiction

Civil Procedure – Institution of Proceedings – Prescription

Administrative law – review of decisions to award tenders and contracts concluded pursuant thereto – whether the tenders and contracts should be declared invalid and set aside – just and equitable relief – whether the tenderers should be divested profits earned from invalid tenders.

Administrative Law – Legality review – Procurement processes.

Administrative law – legality review in terms of s 8 (2) of the Special Investigating Unit and Special Tribunals Act 74 of 1996 – whether functionaries of the second respondent failed to comply with the applicable procurement prescripts when they awarded contracts to the first respondent – just and equitable relief.

Civil procedure – confirmation of rule nisi – whether a proper case is made out for an order confirming the rule nisi – whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant an interdict preserving funds held in a Pension Fund.

Civil procedure – review of Special Tribunal judgement – administrative action.

Civil procedure – review of Special Tribunal judgement – jurisdiction to review.

Civil procedure – whether a Tribunal judgment is reviewable in terms of s 6 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA) – whether the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to review its own decisions – whether the judgment is reviewable.

Held – Tribunal judgments being expressly excluded from the definition of administrative action, they are not reviewable under PAJA – the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over a review application brought in terms of s 22 of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013 on the procedure set out in Rule 53 of the Uniform Rules – review relief is incompetent when sought against the legal effect of an order and not the method of the proceedings.

Special Tribunal – Legality review - Exceptions

Special Tribunal – Legality Review – Exceptions

Civil remedies – Injunctions and interdicts – Interim interdict

Civil Procedure – Pleadings – Amendment to Pleadings

Administrative Law – legality review – unreasonable delay – whether the Department of Transport, KwaZulu-Natal irregularly awarded a tender to Nexor 312 (Pty) Ltd and whether the tender falls to be reviewed and set aside – whether the Special Investigating Unit’s report into the awarding of this tender is irrational and falls to be reviewed and set aside.

Administrative Law – administrative review – irregular award of public procurement contract

Application for the consolidation of two actions in terms of Uniform Rule 11 read with Tribunal Rule 28(1) – the application is opposed only to the extent that the second respondent seeks the notice of motion set aside as an irregular step in terms of Uniform Rule 30 read with Tribunal Rule 28(1) – irregular step application dismissed. It was brought frivolously and vexatiously. Punitive costs warranted. Proper case made for the consolidation of the two actions. Consolidation application granted. Costs are costs in the cause

Application to strike out in terms of Uniform Rule 23(2) read with Tribunal Rule 28(1). Whether the material sought to be struck out is scandalous and irrelevant and will cause prejudice to the twelfth respondent if not struck out. The application partially upheld with costs.

Application to compel discovery in terms of Uniform Rule 35(12) read with Tribunal Rule 17(4) – the Special Investigating Unit’s grounds of opposition lack merit. Application succeeds with costs.

Administrative law – legality review – whether public procurement contracts were awarded irregularly - consequential relief in terms of s8(2) of the Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Act 74 of 1996 – whether circumstances warrant costs on a punitive scale.

Administrative law – legality review in terms of section 8(2) of the Special Investigating Unit and Special Tribunals Act 74 of 1996 – whether the Mpumalanga Department of Health complied with the applicable procurement laws and regulations when it procured PPE items from Vigario Construction. No case for the legality review made out. Application dismissed.

Costs – whether the present circumstances warrant a punitive cost order.

Fraud and contraventions - Municipal Financial Management Act

Civil procedure – interlocutory application – circumstances when supplementary founding affidavit may be filed; and when separation of claim, discovery and condonation relief may be granted.

Challenge based on the doctrine of legality – decision to purchase Personal Protection Equipment declared invalid – equitable relief under section 172(1)(b) of the Constitution considered – liability of officials of a municipality – section 32 of the Municipal Finance Management Act applied.

Public Procurement – irregular and invalid procurement – legality review.

Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004 – section 4 (1) (a) – corruption – gratification received for own benefit – illegal, dishonest, or unauthorised conduct whilst exercising powers, duties or functions of office.

Violation of legal duty – requesting a bribe – theft.

Review of administrative decisions – whether the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) makes out a case for the impugned administrative decisions to be reviewed and set aside.

Held: The impugned decisions are irregular and unlawful.

Just and equitable remedy – the SIU sought just and equitable remedy in terms of s172(1)(b) of the Constitution. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant such a remedy in light of the Constitutional Court decision in Ledla. The Tribunal not having been furnished with the information it requires to determine the appropriate remedial relief, directives are issued for the further conduct of the matter.

Civil procedure – application to amend the plaintiff’s particulars of claim in terms of Uniform Rule 17(4) to correct the citation of the second defendant. The circumstances do not justify the exercise of a discretion in favour of invoking this Uniform Rule in terms of Tribunal Rule 28(1). The proposed amendment objected to on the basis that an incorrect non-existent entity is cited, simply correcting the particulars of claim does not cure defect because the correct entity is not served, thus preventing it from raising plea of prescription. Held – objection is a red herring. The correct entity has notice of the main action; hence it is opposing the proposed amendment. Nothing prevents it from filing a special plea of prescription once the amendment is effective.

Civil trial – whether the plaintiff’s case as pleaded and augmented by the evidence led made out a case for the first defendant to be found liable based on contract, delict or the Public Finance Management Act 1 of 1999.

Held – the plaintiff’s case as pleaded and augmented by the evidence led fails to establish any liability on the part of the first defendant.

Commercial crime - Leave to appeal sentence

Civil procedure – Exception – whether an exception may be brought by way of an application procedure – appropriate order when an exception is upheld – having filed an exception out of time, whether a defendant is ipso facto barred from filing it.

Plea of guilty to various counts of fraud - Large amount of fraud - Prescribed minimum sentences

Pathological gambling addiction - Primary care-giver - Expert evidence of psychiatrist