In a recent development, the legal action taken by former Public Protector Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane for a gratuity payment of millions of rands has been removed from the urgent court roll.
The court has also ordered the Office of the Public Protector to bear the costs of this case. The decision was made after the court determined that the matter was not ready for hearing on the scheduled date.
Mkhwebane approached the High Court in March, seeking a declaration that the conduct of the Office of the Public Protector and its head, Advocate Kholeka Gcaleka, was unconstitutional and invalid in their refusal to pay the gratuity.
The court noted that there were differing views on the issues that needed to be determined urgently. However, the urgency of the application was acknowledged by all parties involved.
Justice Colleen Collis emphasized the importance of the case, stating that it raised complex issues that needed careful consideration. The outcome of these proceedings would have serious consequences for both parties. The court needed to consider all the evidence presented before making a decision.
Counsel representing Mkhwebane argued that the Office of the Public Protector had failed to comply with the period specified in the notice of motion for furnishing the record.
Advocate Dali Mpofu SC, on behalf of Mkhwebane, expressed dissatisfaction with the responding party’s submission of an answering affidavit and a condonation notice instead of the promised record.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: Busisiwe Mkhwebane’s Legal Battle For R10 Million Gratuity Begins
On the other hand, counsel for the Office of the Public Protector, Advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi SC, attributed the failure to comply with an unreasonable timetable set by the applicant. Ngcukaitobi argued that the timeframes were not reasonable and should be examined further.
After considering all the submissions, the court concluded that the matter was not ready for hearing. It ordered the application to be removed from the urgent roll for enrolment on an alternative date, which would be determined by the Deputy Judge President upon request from the parties involved.
Furthermore, the court directed the Office of the Public Protector to provide the record and reasons for the decision not to pay the gratuity by 19 April 2024. Additionally, the Office of the Public Protector was ordered to bear the costs on the attorney and client scale.
This decision highlights the need for proper compliance with legal procedures and the importance of presenting a complete record. It also emphasizes the significance of ensuring that reasonable timeframes are set for all parties involved in legal proceedings.
As the case progresses, it will be interesting to see how the court evaluates the arguments presented and reaches a final decision. The outcome of this case will not only impact the parties involved but also have broader implications for the functioning of the Office of the Public Protector.
