Greater Taung Local Municipality v Office of the Public Protector and Others (89658/2018) [2025] ZAGPPHC 776 (1 August 2025)
REPORTABILITY SCORE: 82/100 Public Protector — Jurisdiction — Complaint of occupational detriment — Mr. Bloem alleged that Greater Taung Municipality suspended and dismissed him in retaliation for a protected disclosure regarding corruption — The Public Protector's jurisdiction to investigate the complaint was affirmed, as it fell within the scope of Section 182(1) of the Constitution and the Protected Disclosure Act — The Municipality's argument that the Public Protector lacked jurisdiction was dismissed, as her powers are not ousted by the Labour Relations Act. Public Protector — Remedial action — The Public Protector ordered the reinstatement of Mr. Bloem with backpay, finding that the Municipality's actions constituted unfair dismissal and occupational detriment — The Municipality's challenge to the lawfulness of the remedial action was rejected, as the Public Protector's discretion to impose appropriate remedies is supported by constitutional principles and does not require adherence to Labour Relations Act procedures. Costs — The application for review by the Municipality was dismissed with costs, as Mr. Bloem was successful in his opposition to the review.
Case Note
Greater Taung Local Municipality v The Office of the Public Protector, The Public Protector & Thuso Bloem
Case No. 89658/2018 – Gauteng Division, Pretoria – judgment delivered 1 August 2025
(Reported as Greater Taung Local Municipality v Public Protector [2025] ZAGPPHC ___)
Reportability
The judgment is expressly marked “REPORTABLE” in the court heading. It deals with the scope of the Public Protector’s jurisdiction under section 182 of the Constitution, the interface between that jurisdiction and remedies available under labour-law statutes, and the nature of “appropriate remedial action”. Because these issues frequently recur in review proceedings against the Public Protector, the decision provides important guidance to courts, practitioners and organs of state on the limits of administrative-law review based on the principle of legality.
The case is therefore significant for its clarification of: (a) when the Public Protector may investigate occupational detriment springing from a protected disclosure; (b) how the choice of another dispute-resolution “process” under section 4(1)(b) of the Protected Disclosures Act (“PDA”) affects jurisdiction; and (c) the yardstick for determining whether reinstatement and back-pay constitute “appropriate remedial action”.
Cases Cited
Minister of Home Affairs and Another v Public Protector of the Republic of South Africa 2018 (3) SA 380 (SCA)
Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others 2016 (3) SA 560 (CC)
SABC Society Ltd and Others v Democratic Alliance and Others 2016 (2) SA 522 (SCA)
Legislation Cited
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 – section 182
Protected Disclosures Act 26 of 2000 – sections 3 and 4
Public Protector Act 23 of 1994 – section 6(9)
Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
Local Government: Municipal Structures Act 117 of 1998 (contextual reference)
Rules of Court Cited
None were expressly cited in the judgment.
HEADNOTE
Summary
The Greater Taung Local Municipality applied to review and set aside the Public Protector’s Report 17/2018-2019, which found that the Municipality had subjected Mr Thuso Bloem to occupational detriment after he made protected disclosures about corruption by the Acting Municipal Manager, Mr Mofokeng. The Public Protector had ordered Bloem’s reinstatement with full back-pay and interest.
The High Court (Kooverjie J) dismissed the review. It held that the Public Protector had jurisdiction to investigate the complaint because the alleged prejudice arose from “improper conduct” by an organ of state, and because section 4(1)(b) of the PDA does not oust that jurisdiction. Applying EFF v Speaker the Court found the remedial action both rational and appropriate. The Municipality was therefore ordered to comply, and to pay costs.
Procedurally, the Court condoned Bloem’s late opposing affidavit, accepting his explanation that he had relied on the Public Protector to defend the review until she withdrew for budgetary reasons.
Key Issues
Whether the Public Protector had jurisdiction to investigate a protected-disclosure dispute that could also have been pursued under the Labour Relations Act.
Whether the complaint was lodged within the time-limit in section 6(9) of the Public Protector Act.
Whether the remedial action of reinstatement with back-pay was lawful, rational and “appropriate” in the constitutional sense.
Whether Bloem’s late filing should be condoned.
Held
The Public Protector’s jurisdiction is sourced directly in section 182(1) of the Constitution; it is not ousted by the availability of labour-law processes or by section 4(1)(b) of the PDA.
The complaint was not out of time as the occupational detriment was continuing, and, in any event, the Public Protector had properly condoned any delay.
The remedial action—reinstatement with full back-pay plus interest—was rationally connected to the findings and satisfied the EFF test for “appropriateness”.
The Municipality’s application for review was accordingly dismissed with costs.
THE FACTS
Mr Thuso Bloem had been employed by the Municipality since 2003 and served as a shop steward of SAMWU. In March 2011 he and SAMWU reported allegations of corruption and fraud against Acting Municipal Manager Mr Mofokeng, accusing him of abusing municipal funds, awarding irregular tenders, and hiring a vehicle for personal use at municipal expense.
Following the disclosure, Mofokeng was placed on suspension by the municipal council. He resisted that suspension, remained in office, and retaliated by suspending Bloem on multiple charges ranging from unauthorised use of a municipal vehicle to disruption of operations. After a disciplinary inquiry Bloem was dismissed. His Labour Court application for reinstatement was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
Unable to finance further labour-law litigation, Bloem approached the Public Protector claiming that the suspension and dismissal constituted occupational detriment in violation of section 3 of the PDA. The Public Protector investigated, found the Municipality’s conduct improper, and issued a report directing reinstatement, back-pay and systemic remedial measures. The Municipality then brought this review.
THE ISSUES
The Court had to determine five questions: First, should Bloem’s late answering affidavit be condoned? Second, was the complaint barred by the two-year limit in section 6(9) of the Public Protector Act? Third, was the victimisation claim merely an afterthought? Fourth, did the Public Protector have jurisdiction notwithstanding parallel remedies under the Labour Relations Act? Fifth, was the remedial action lawful and rational in terms of the principle of legality?
ANALYSIS
Kooverjie J began by addressing condonation. The explanation for delay—Bloem’s reliance on the Public Protector and later difficulty in securing pro-bono representation—was found reasonable. The Municipality’s technical opposition, advanced only in heads of argument rather than on affidavit, carried little weight. Given the public-interest nature of the dispute and Bloem’s prospects of success, condonation was granted.
On jurisdiction, the Court applied Minister of Home Affairs v Public Protector, confirming that section 182(1) empowers the Public Protector to investigate “improper conduct” by any organ of state. The occupational detriment alleged by Bloem squarely fitted that remit. Section 4(1)(b) of the PDA expressly allows a whistle-blower to choose “any other process allowed or prescribed by any law” and therefore cannot be read as excluding the Public Protector.
Turning to rationality, the Court invoked EFF v Speaker to reiterate that “appropriate remedial action” must be effective, suitable and truly responsive to the complaint. Reinstatement with back-pay was not excessive: it restored Bloem to the position he would have occupied but for the impropriety. The Municipality’s contention that only the Labour Court could grant such relief was rejected; constitutional supremacy obliged every organ of state, including the courts, to respect binding remedial action unless and until it is lawfully set aside.
REMEDY
The review application was dismissed in its entirety and the Public Protector’s Report 17/2018-2019 was left intact. The Municipality was ordered to pay the costs of the application, including the costs occasioned by the condonation proceedings.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
Public-law power is reviewable for legality; decisions must be rationally related to their empowering purpose.
The Public Protector’s jurisdiction under section 182(1) of the Constitution is broad and is not displaced by alternative statutory remedies unless the Constitution or the statute expressly says so.
“Appropriate remedial action” (section 182(1)(c)) must be effective, suitable and constitutionally compliant; it is binding unless a court sets it aside.
The PDA’s section 4(1)(b) gives a whistle-blower the freedom to choose another lawful forum without sacrificing the protective shield offered by the Act.
Condonation for late filing hinges on a holistic assessment: length of delay, explanation, prospects of success and the interests of justice.