Matakata v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) and Others (Case No 17671/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 123 (31 July 2025)
This judgment is reportable because it clarifies the interaction between declaratory relief under section 21(1)(c) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 and the principle of legality where an employee attacks the validity of a disciplinary process long after dismissal. It is significant for labour-law litigants who, instead of pursuing statutory or review remedies, seek belated declaratory orders aimed at reinstatement. The court’s refusal of leave underscores the high threshold for overturning a discretionary refusal of declaratory relief, particularly where the applicant has already exhausted numerous alternative fora without success.
Oudekraal Estates (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town and Others 2004 (6) SA 222 (SCA) – relied on to explain when an apparently defective administrative act remains effective until set aside.
Matakata v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (PRASA) and Others (17671/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 52 (18 February 2025) – the principal judgment forming the subject of the application for leave to appeal.
(Although the parties referred to a series of Labour Court and CCMA matters, no additional reported cases were expressly cited.)
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, section 217 dealing with procurement principles.
Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, section 21(1)(c) empowering the court to grant declaratory relief.
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000.
Public Finance Management Act 1 of 1999, section 51(1)(a)(iii).
No specific rules of court were referenced in the judgment.
The applicant, a former Head: Corporate Security at PRASA, was dismissed for misconduct on 10 April 2017 after a disciplinary hearing chaired by counsel briefed through PRASA’s attorneys. Eight years and multiple unsuccessful challenges later, he sought declaratory orders that the appointment of the disciplinary panel was unlawful, that the hearing and its outcome were invalid, and that his contract of employment therefore never terminated. The High Court dismissed the application on 18 February 2025. In this judgment, delivered on 31 July 2025, Magardie AJ refuses leave to appeal, finding no reasonable prospects of success and no compelling reasons to grant leave.
Whether the court in the principal judgment misapplied the Oudekraal principle in holding that the dismissal remained effective until set aside.
Whether common-cause facts warranted a declaration that the applicant’s employment had never terminated.
Whether alleged irregularities in the procurement of the chairperson and initiator rendered the disciplinary hearing invalid.
Magardie AJ held that none of the proposed grounds of appeal raised reasonable prospects of success. The applicant’s procurement-based attack was unsupported by evidence; the Auditor-General’s report did not implicate the panel concerned; and the discretionary refusal of declaratory relief was justified by the history of fruitless litigation and the availability of review remedies that had long prescribed. Leave to appeal was therefore refused with costs.
The applicant occupied a senior security position at PRASA until his dismissal for misconduct on 10 April 2017. The disciplinary hearing was conducted by two advocates from the Johannesburg Bar appointed through Bowmans, acting for PRASA.
Following dismissal, the applicant pursued remedies in the CCMA, four separate applications in the Labour Court, an application for direct access to the Constitutional Court, and two applications in the High Court. All previous proceedings failed, leaving the dismissal intact.
In 2023 he launched the main High Court application seeking declaratory relief that the disciplinary process was unlawful because, among other reasons, PRASA allegedly contravened its procurement policy and section 217 of the Constitution when appointing external counsel. The application was dismissed on 18 February 2025, leading to the present application for leave to appeal.
The court had to decide whether an appeal would have reasonable prospects of success on three principal grounds: first, that the court failed to address all attacks on the dismissal, particularly the impact of Oudekraal; second, that the undisputed facts compelled a declaration that the employment relationship subsists; and third, that the appointment of the disciplinary panel was unlawful because PRASA’s procurement process was defective.
Magardie AJ began by emphasising that declaratory relief is discretionary and that the applicant had consciously eschewed review proceedings under PAJA or legality. Because the dismissal remained unchallenged on review, it retained legal effect under the Oudekraal doctrine until set aside, and the principal judgment had correctly applied that principle.
Turning to the procurement argument, the court noted that the applicant relied mainly on a single paragraph in the Auditor-General’s 2016/2017 PRASA report. That paragraph criticised generic non-compliance with supply-chain rules but made no reference to Bowmans or the advocates who presided over the disciplinary hearing. Without specific evidence linking the report to the applicant’s matter, the allegation of invalidity was unsubstantiated.
Finally, the court weighed the long litigation history. Eight years had elapsed, multiple fora had rejected the applicant’s claims, and the Labour Court had not reinstated him. In these circumstances, an appellate court was unlikely to disturb the exercise of discretion that refused declaratory relief. Consequently, none of the grounds raised a reasonable prospect of success, nor were there compelling reasons to grant leave.
Leave to appeal was refused, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents’ costs.
An administrative act, even if arguably invalid, remains effective until set aside by a competent court; declaratory relief cannot circumvent this principle (Oudekraal).
Declaratory orders under section 21(1)(c) of the Superior Courts Act are discretionary; courts consider factors such as delay, alternative remedies, and the interests of justice before granting such relief.
Allegations of procurement irregularity must be supported by clear, cogent evidence establishing a causal link between the defective process and the decision impugned; vague reliance on audit findings is insufficient.