Policy, Law, Economics and Politics - Deepening Democracy through Access to Information
This privately-owned website is operated and maintained by Creamer Media
We have detected that the browser you are using is no longer supported. As a result, some content may not display correctly.
We suggest that you upgrade to the latest version of any of the following browsers:
         
close notification
24 March 2017
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Embed Code Close
content
 
Advertisements:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Related social media
 
Related social media terms:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DOWNLOAD
 

The applicants seek an order reviewing and setting aside the final report by the first respondent ("the Public Protector") on an investigation into certain alleged conduct of employees of the Department of Home Affairs.  The final report is dated 25 July 2013.

In the alternative, orders are sought to review and set aside certain specific findings contained in the aforesaid final report.  There is also a prayer for declaratory relief to the effect that the Public Protector acted ultra vires her powers in making the findings and imposing the remedial actions contained in the report.

The applicants also seek a costs order.

The application is opposed by the Public Protector.

The second respondent, the aggrieved official of the Department of Home Affairs who asked the Public Protector to investigate the matter, played no active part in the proceedings.

 Before me, Mr Mokhari SC, with Mr Platt, appeared for the applicants and Mr Maleka SC, with Mr Ben Zeev, appeared for the Public Protector.

Edited by: Creamer Media Reporter
 
Comment Guidelines (150 word limit)
 
 
 
 
  Topics on this page
 
 
 
Company
 
Continent
 
Person
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Online Publishers Association
Close