Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii

[1] The applicant seeks the following relief:

“1. That the decision of the dti, dated 20 June 2016, not to pay the applicant the approved grant amount, or any amount at all (“the decision of the dti”), be reviewed and set aside, in terms of section 8(1)(c) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (“the PAJA”);

2. That the decision of the dti be remitted to the dti with the following directions, in terms of section 8(1)(c)(i) and (d) of the PAJA:

2.1 the applicant’s failure to state the correct number of employees in its application for the MCEP grant (which was subsequently correct) is not in itself fatal to the application;

2.2 the dti erred in finding that the applicant’s number of employees in any year of the incentive period was less than the applicant’s number of base-year employees at the date of the application;

2.3 the dti is directed to determine and pay within two months of the date of the order the correct amount of the grant that is payable to the applicant in accordance with its claims submitted on 14 March 2014 and 30 April 2015.

3. That the costs of the application be paid by the dti, should it oppose the relief sought”.