![]() This Court that these individuals were appointed at her instance and In relation to the last question, namely The individuals appointed did not file any written reports on theirĭuties, but reported directly to the Minister. (ii) They reported directly to the Minister, through Ms Mvulane, who The individuals identified by the Minister Petersen (then CEO) set the process in motion and further letters to During the inquiry the answerĪfter receiving the Minister Dlamini’s letter of 9 July 2015ĭirecting her to appoint work streams and their leaders, These individuals would account directly to her during the The letter dated 9 July 2015 and did so with immediate Minister Dlamini ought to be liable for costs out of her own pocket.ĭlamini did appoint individuals to lead parallel work streams as per Invited to file submissions on whether, in light of the Report, Inquiry Report was released to the public and the parties were Report) by Ngoepe JP was delivered to this Court. Inquiry Report in terms of section 38 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013: Referee: B M Ngoepe JP (Inquiry That these individuals were appointed at her instance The reason why the Minister did not disclose to this Court Respondent’s (SASSA) report filed with the Court on 5 November Respondent in relation to the objectives stated in the Whether they reported directly to the Minister įull details of the dates and content of their reports to the first (b) If these individuals were appointed, the following information is To the affidavit of Mr Magwaza filed in relation to the personal Individuals to lead ‘work streams’ who would reportĭirectly to her, as set out in the letter, annexure “A” The parties agreed on a refereeĪnd retired Judge President Ngoepe (Ngoepe JP) was appointed to Responsibility in establishing the parallel decision-makingĬommunication processes. To determine the issues relating to Minister Dlamini’s role and ![]() Process in terms of section 38 of the Superior Courts Act That the parties report to this Court on whether they agreed Ordered that Minister Dlamini be joined in her personal capacity and In response, affidavits were filed that raised conflicts ofįact in relation to an alleged parallel process of responsibility Her personal capacity and why she should not pay the On affidavit as to why she should not be joined to the proceedings in Social Development (Minister Dlamini) was called upon to show In that judgment costs were reserved and the then Minister of This judgment deals with the issue of costs left open in Black Khampepe J, Mhlantla J, Petse AJ and Theron Oath and, if so, whether she should be prosecuted for perjury.ĬJ, Zondo DCJ, Basson AJ, Cameron J, Dlodlo AJ, Goliath AJ, Public Prosecutions, to consider whether Minister Dlamini Referee: B M Ngoepe JP and this judgment to the National Director of ![]() In terms of section 38 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013: This Court is directed to forward a copy of the Inquiry Report Law in the application, including the costs of two counsel. Ordered to pay 20% of the costs of Black Sash Trust Olive Dlamini (Minister Dlamini) is, in her personal capacity, Trust and Freedom Under Law in the application, Minister liable for costs - Gross negligenceĪnd third respondents are to pay 80% of the costs of Black Sash Goliath AJ, Khampepe J, Mhlantla J, Petse AJ and Theron J. Mogoeng CJ, Zondo DCJ, Basson AJ, Cameron J, Dlodlo AJ, Froneman J, Neutral citation: Black Sash Trust (Freedom Under Law Intervening) v Minister of ![]() Black Sash Trust v Minister of Social Development and Others (Freedom Under Law Intervening) (CCT48/17) Z(12) BCLR 1472 (CC) (27 September 2018)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |