|
Title
|
Jurisdiction |
|
Date
|
|
Tribunal revived a lapsed preservation rule nisi, holding that issuing summons ordinarily constitutes instituting action and good cause justified revival.
Civil procedure — Interpretation of "institute action" — whether issue of summons or service is required for compliance with time-limited orders. Special Tribunal procedure — application of Uniform Rules via Tribunal Rule 28 where Tribunal rules contain a lacuna. Extension/condonation — Uniform Rule 27: good cause test, explanation for delay, bona fide prospects, recall of consequences of expiry. Preservation orders — interplay between revival of a lapsed rule nisi and substantive challenges under Tribunal Rule 23.
|
|
Judgment |
14 July 2022 |
|
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)
|
|
Judgment |
29 June 2022 |
|
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
|
|
Judgment |
29 June 2022 |
|
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
|
|
Judgment |
15 June 2022 |
|
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
|
|
Judgment |
9 June 2022 |
|
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
|
|
Judgment |
7 June 2022 |
|
Application to set aside preservation orders dismissed: errors were inadvertent, audit report inadmissible, UIF interest and proceedings established.
Prevention of Organised Crime Act – preservation orders – reconsideration – alleged lack of uberrima fides; admissibility of audit report; UIF’s interest in preserved funds; compliance with court’s order to institute action/arbitration; interpretation and purpose of TERS directive and MOA.
|
Eastern Cape
|
Judgment |
31 May 2022 |
|
The court refused to strike the matter under s342A, holding pre‑arraignment delay outside s342A's scope.
Criminal Procedure Act s342A – unreasonable delay enquiry; intra‑curial v extra‑curial delay; s342A remedies limited to post‑commencement delay; permanent stay (extraordinary High Court remedy) for pre‑arraignment prejudice; systemic forensic delays may justify pre‑indictment lapse but do not alone invoke s342A relief.
|
KwaZulu-Natal
|
Judgment |
22 May 2022 |
|
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
|
|
Judgment |
18 May 2022 |
|
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
|
|
Judgment |
4 May 2022 |
|
Withdrawing particulars did not withdraw the action; SIU’s amended pleadings breached Rules 18 but were not struck out due to public interest.
Civil procedure – withdrawal of proceedings – Tribunal Rule 21(1) – withdrawal must be effected by notice in terms of rule; mere withdrawal of particulars does not withdraw cause of action. Pleadings – amendment and compliance – Uniform Rules 18(4), 18(10) – requirement to plead contract terms and separate damages per contract. Service – Tribunal Rule 6(4) permits service by email; Uniform Rule 4(1)(a) inapplicable where Tribunal rules provide alternative service. Strike‑out – non‑compliance under Rule 18(12) gives jurisdictional basis for Rule 30 strike‑out, but public interest may weigh against striking out and favour compelling compliance.
|
|
Judgment |
28 April 2022 |
|
Late filing condoned despite inadequate explanation because applicant showed bona fide defence and intention to proceed; costs awarded to respondent.
Tribunal Rule 14 (condonation) – upliftment of bar/extension of time – requires full and reasonable explanation for delay and a bona fide defence. Extension of time applications guided by Uniform Rule 27 jurisprudence – court's wide discretion and consideration of merits. Costs – party seeking indulgence ordinarily bears costs where opposition is reasonable.
|
|
Judgment |
25 March 2022 |
|
Particulars failed to plead condictio indebiti adequately; exception upheld but plaintiffs granted leave to amend.
Special Tribunal – exception – failure to disclose cause of action. Unjustified enrichment – condictio indebiti – necessity to plead elements of the specific enrichment action. Pleadings – overlap and ambiguity between claims; impermissible alteration in heads of argument. Remedy – setting aside defective particulars and granting leave to amend, not dismissal. Authority – Perry considered but not authority for abandoning requirement to plead a particular condictio.
|
|
Judgment |
18 March 2022 |
|
No-profit-no-loss principle applied: contractors divested of profits; reasonable expenses set off against pre-payments.
• Constitutional law – s 172(1)(b) – formulation of just and equitable remedy after invalid procurement contracts.
• Public procurement – application of no-profit-no-loss principle (AllPay) in procurement irregularity cases.
• Exceptional circumstances – Gijima exception requires specific factual basis to displace default remedy.
• Remedies – divestiture of profits, audited accounts, expert quantification and set-off of reasonable expenses.
• Procedural – late expert evidence, dismissal of postponement, condonation granted.
|
|
Judgment |
8 March 2022 |
|
Applicant established a prima facie case to join additional respondents accused of receiving proceeds of unlawfully awarded contracts.
Joinder — test for joinder: direct and substantial interest; cause of action not patently unfounded; SIU alleging unlawful proceeds/unjustified enrichment and section 172(1)(b) relief; contested defences (repayment, ordinary-course business, commixtio) to be determined on merits; applicant entitled to join respondents and amend relief.
|
|
Judgment |
8 March 2022 |
|
Tribunal order of forfeiture is automatically suspended when appeal proceedings are instituted.
Special Investigations Unit – Statutory lacuna in suspension of Tribunal orders during appeal – inherent jurisdiction invoked – procedural fairness and equity considerations in forfeiture proceedings.
|
|
Judgment |
23 February 2022 |
|
Tribunal granted an immediate interim interdict preventing payment of R510,024 pension benefits pending litigation and kept order confidential.
Special Tribunal – urgent ex parte application – interim interdict restraining payment of pension benefits pending institution and finalisation of action – preservation of assets – Rule 12(2) urgency, Rule 12(9) reconsideration procedure – confidentiality of order.
|
|
Judgment |
21 February 2022 |
|
The court refused the applicant's recusal application, finding no reasonable apprehension of judicial bias from s252A findings.
Recusal — reasonable apprehension of bias; presumption of judicial impartiality; Section 252A trial-within-a-trial — admissibility and onus; accused’s election not to testify and consequences; reasons and credibility findings do not necessarily indicate bias; disputed findings are appealable.
|
KwaZulu-Natal
|
Judgment |
21 February 2022 |
|
|
|
Judgment |
17 February 2022 |
|
Emergency procurement that breached procurement rules was set aside and respondents ordered to account for and disgorge profits.
Public procurement – emergency deviation – compliance with Treasury Regulation 16A6.4 – requirement of fairness, transparency, cost‑effectiveness and SCM involvement; National Treasury Instructions NT5 and NT7 – mandatory internal controls and authorisations for COVID‑19 procurement; Central Supplier Database registration and capacity vetting – compulsory under approved deviation; No‑profit principle – disgorgement of profits and entitlement to statements and debatement of account; Special Tribunal jurisdiction and SIU standing to seek review and just and equitable relief.
|
|
Judgment |
10 February 2022 |
|
SIU review: failure to enforce mandatory SANS quality requirements rendered COVID-19 surgical gown procurement unlawful.
Public procurement – COVID-19 emergency procurement – SIU competence to bring legality review under Presidential proclamation – SIU Act. Medical regulation – MRSA s22C(1)(b) discretionary licensing; SAHPRA licence not mandatory for distributors in RFQ context. Procurement law – mandatory technical requirements (SANS 53795 certificates, accredited sample testing); failure to comply renders award irregular and unconstitutional (s217). Remedy – declaration of invalidity, divestiture of profit, independent expert assessment, audited accounts, PFMA recovery, costs to applicant.
|
|
Judgment |
31 January 2022 |
|
Section 252A undercover evidence admissible: police conduct was only an opportunity, not impermissible inducement; onus discharged beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal procedure – Section 252A CPA – use of traps/undercover operations – whether conduct goes beyond providing an opportunity to commit an offence – admissibility of evidence. Section 252A(2) – factors to be considered holistically and cumulatively (approval, nature of offence, inducement, persistence, proportionality, exploitation, timing, handlers’ conduct). Section 252A(6) – onus on prosecution to prove admissibility; court applied and found onus discharged beyond reasonable doubt. Section 252A(3) – discretionary balancing of public interest against accused’s personal interests when conduct goes beyond opportunity. Constitutional law – right to a fair trial (s35) – undercover operation did not infringe protected rights.
|
KwaZulu-Natal
|
Judgment |
24 January 2022 |
|
Interim preservation of disputed procurement funds upheld due to urgency and prima facie procurement irregularities.
Urgent interim preservation of funds – Tribunal invoked Rule 24/23 – urgency established by imminent expiry of FIC notices and risk of dissipation – expert report admitted in discretion despite formal defects – prima facie procurement irregularities (no proper tender, deficient SLAs, no approved budget, possible overcharging and wasteful expenditure) – reconsideration dismissed; punitive costs against late respondent affidavit.
|
|
Judgment |
21 January 2022 |
|
A stay pending variation of a SARS preservation order was refused because applicants failed to disclose finances and sought to delay the review.
Administrative law – interim and preservation orders – application for stay of review pending variation of SARS preservation order – requirement of full disclosure of financial means and third‑party funding. Tax Administration Act s163(9) – undue hardship and variation of preservation orders – evidentiary burden on applicant. Civil procedure – stay applications – bona fides, delay, and prejudice to opposing parties and public interest. Tribunal jurisdiction – inherent powers to make orders to give effect to rulings under the Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Act.
|
|
Judgment |
21 December 2021 |
|
|
|
Judgment |
15 November 2021 |
|
Third‑party contribution and joint‑wrongdoer claims under the Apportionment Act fail where the primary claim is contractual and plaintiffs are represented.
Third‑party procedure — competency to join plaintiffs represented by a plaintiff; Apportionment of Damages Act limited to delictual claims — no indemnity/contribution where main claim is contractual; vicarious liability inapt where employer is the injured party; unjustified enrichment requires claimant’s impoverishment; section 125 of the Constitution does not create the claimed personal indemnity remedy.
|
|
Judgment |
25 October 2021 |
|
Tribunal granted urgent preservation order appointing curator bonis and prohibiting respondent dealing with specified vehicles pending review.
Special Tribunal — urgent interim preservation order — joinder of respondent — appointment of curator bonis — prohibition on dealing with assets — SIU authorised to seize and enter premises — service by email — costs reserved.
|
Johannesburg
|
Judgment |
4 October 2021 |
|
A special tribunal may order civil forfeiture where an undisclosed public‑official interest indicates proceeds of unlawful activity.
Special Tribunal jurisdiction; SIU Act and Proclamation; civil forfeiture under POCA; PRECCA s17 non‑disclosure by public official; PRECCA s3 acceptance of gratification; POCA s4 proceeds of unlawful activity.
|
|
Judgment |
4 October 2021 |
|
|
|
Judgment |
31 August 2021 |
|
The applicants proved a former state executive received R26.42m in secret supplier payments; disgorgement and accounting ordered.
Public procurement; secret profits by public official; breach of fiduciary and contractual duties; disgorgement; joint and several liability of supplier and signatory; statement and debatement of account; set‑off of forfeiture proceeds and preserved pension; punitive costs (attorney and client).
|
|
Judgment |
31 August 2021 |
|
Interim interdict granted to freeze pension payout where prima facie procurement irregularities and risk of dissipation existed.
Public procurement — PFMA and Treasury Regulations (Reg 16A) — accounting officer’s duty — irregular participation in another organ of state’s contract; interim interdict — prima facie case, irreparable harm (dissipation), no adequate alternative remedy, balance of convenience.
|
|
Judgment |
24 August 2021 |
|
The defendant may not use Tribunal Rule 13(7) to bar plaintiffs on an exception; Uniform Rule 23 applies where Tribunal rules are silent.
Civil procedure – Special Tribunal procedure – interplay between Tribunal Rules and High Court Uniform Rules – Tribunal Rule 13(7) applies to pleadings only and cannot ipso facto bar exceptions. Tribunal Rule 28(1) – where Tribunal rules are silent the Tribunal may invoke High Court Uniform Rules without exceptional threshold. Irregular step – notice of bar under Rule 13(7) impermissible for exceptions; proper course is Uniform Rule 23 procedure or case management. Costs – improper procedural tactics attract costs, with limits on senior counsel appearance costs.
|
|
Judgment |
23 August 2021 |
|
Special Tribunal may grant preservation and no‑profit relief; SIU proved urgency and prima facie procurement irregularities.
Special Tribunal jurisdiction; no‑profit/disgorgement relief competent; Rule 23 preservation of bank account claims as evidence; urgency and ex parte relief justified by risk of dissipation and FIC directives; material irregularities in public procurement (absence of SCM process, arbitrary fees, non‑transparent appointments).
|
|
Judgment |
30 July 2021 |
|
SIU granted urgent freezing order preventing respondents dealing with listed funds and investments pending review proceedings.
Special Tribunal – urgency – ex parte interim relief – freezing/prohibition order over funds and investments – service by e-mail to designated AML/MRO officers and listed addresses – striking of affidavit paragraphs – procedural directions for variation, reconsideration and electronic filing – costs reserved – media disclosure restricted.
|
Johannesburg
|
Judgment |
17 June 2021 |
|
Applicant interdicted payment of respondent’s pension pending litigation over alleged procurement irregularities.
Civil procedure — postponement — discretion; Discovery — Special Tribunal Rule 17(4) and Uniform Rules 35(12), 35(13), 35(14) — applicability in applications; Discovery — relevance, possession and abuse of process; Interim interdict — prima facie case, apprehension of harm, balance of convenience, absence of alternative remedy; Preservation of pension benefits pending action for recovery of alleged state losses.
|
Johannesburg
|
Judgment |
15 June 2021 |
|
|
KwaZulu-Natal
|
Judgment |
31 May 2021 |
|
Leave to appeal refused; procurement contract declared unlawful, interim interdict extended, and forfeiture orders upheld.
Administrative law; public procurement – PFMA and Treasury instructions – unlawful award of PPE contracts during COVID-19 emergency. Interim interdict restraining pension payouts pending civil proceedings. Forfeiture of funds as proceeds of unlawful activity – Mohamed/Botha test; burden to show acquisition legally, for value, and without suspicion.
|
Gauteng
|
Judgment |
25 May 2021 |
|
Applicants failed to show a reasonable prospect of success to appeal forfeiture orders for assets derived from corrupt payments.
Special Tribunal proceedings – preservation and forfeiture orders – proceeds of unlawful activity – bribery/gratification – curator valuation – leave to appeal under s17(1) Superior Courts Act – higher threshold requiring reasonable prospect of success – costs including two counsel.
|
Johannesburg
|
Judgment |
25 May 2021 |
|
Tribunal set aside a tender award, declared the contract void ab initio, and ordered accounting and disgorgement with interest.
Procurement law – administrative review of tender award – award set aside; contract declared void ab initio; restitutionary relief – accounting, disgorgement of profits and interest.
|
KwaZulu-Natal
|
Judgment |
18 May 2021 |
|
Applicant obtained urgent interim preservation order preventing respondents and banks from dealing with specified assets pending review.
Special Tribunal – urgent ex parte preservation order – dispensing with forms and service under Rule 12(2). Interim interdict – restraint on dealing with specified bank accounts, investments and vehicles pending review proceedings. Banks ordered to comply with preservation directive; disclosure to media restricted until service.
|
Johannesburg
|
Judgment |
17 May 2021 |
|
|
KwaZulu-Natal
|
Judgment |
30 March 2021 |
|
|
Johannesburg
|
Judgment |
18 March 2021 |
|
|
|
Judgment |
26 February 2021 |
|
A tribunal can preserve a former member's pension under Pension Law s21 without prior admission or judgment.
Preservation orders – pension benefits – Pension Law s21 authorises withholding/deduction to recoup losses for theft, fraud or misconduct – purposive interpretation (Highveld Steel) – relationship between primary legislation and Tribunal Rules (Rule 23) – Uniform Rule 30/30A procedural challenge – extension of time for organs of state (Uniform Rule 27 and Rule 6(13)).
|
|
Judgment |
12 February 2021 |
|
Forensic report is an investigatory aid; respondents must prove innocent-owner defence with contemporaneous documents or risk forfeiture.
Special Tribunal – Forfeiture proceeding – use of forensic accountant report as investigative tool (not evidence); innocent-owner defence – onus and three-part test (legal title, value, lack of knowledge/reasonable suspicion) – requirement of invoices/delivery notes; inadmissibility of new evidence filed post-judgment; respondent-specific forfeiture and discharge orders.
|
Pretoria
|
Judgment |
4 February 2021 |
|
The Tribunal granted rectification to insert "Office of" before references to the Premier and MEC, and refused intervention.
Civil procedure – Rule 42(1)(b) – correction/rectification of judgment for patent omission or ambiguity – insertion of omitted words to reflect tribunal's intended meaning. Interpretation – avoidance of unintended factual finding where dispute of fact reserved for civil trial permitting oral evidence. Intervention – principles governing leave to join/intervene after final tribunal judgment; intervention refused where unnecessary and remedy lies in the civil trial.
|
Johannesburg
|
Judgment |
1 February 2021 |
|
An unlawful Covid‑19 procurement contract was set aside and distributed proceeds were preserved, investigated and selectively forfeited to the State.
• Procurement law – public procurement during disaster – compliance with section 217, PFMA and Treasury notes; • SIU and Special Tribunal Act – SIU's locus standi and Tribunal's civil forfeiture and preservation jurisdiction; • Forfeiture law – proceeds of unlawful activity, innocent owner defence, proportionality and requirement for forensic accounting analysis; • Interim relief – extension of interdict against pension payment pending trial.
|
Pretoria
|
Judgment |
10 December 2020 |
|
The rule nisi granted on 4 September 2020 lapsed for non-compliance and the applicant was ordered to pay costs, including two counsel.
Civil procedure – rule nisi – lapse for failure to comply with terms of the rule nisi (paragraph 3). Costs – non-compliance attracts an order for costs, including costs of two counsel where employed. Enforcement – procedural consequence of failing to comply with court-ordered interim relief.
|
Johannesburg
|
Judgment |
24 November 2020 |
|
|
Johannesburg
|
Judgment |
19 November 2020 |
|
Tribunal held the respondent received unlawful payments and ordered forfeiture of the proceeds to the State.
Special Investigating Unit; Special Tribunal – preservation and forfeiture – unlawful gratification/secret profits – SIU bank-forensic evidence – PRECCA s17 – Companies Act duties to disclose private interests – res judicata and arbitration evidence – assets forfeited as proceeds of unlawful activity.
|
Johannesburg
|
Judgment |
17 November 2020 |