IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
(1) REPORTABLE: 'if!S/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES: 'fe'S'/NO
(3) REVISED
~ °'-\LL\ 2.( .......................................
DATE
In the application of:
ZODWA MAVIS KHANYILE
HLENGIWE MKHIZE
ANNA NTSHANGASE
MCUPHENI WISEMAN MDAKANE
Others:
and Case number: 44658/2012
Date of hearing: 12 February 2025
Date delivered: 29 April 2025
First Applicant
Second Applicant
Third Applicant
Fourth Applicant
Fifth to 9000th Applicants
THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA First Respondent
CHAIRPERSON OF THE PORTFOLIO
1
COMMITTEE ON DEFENCE
MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY
VETERANS
CHIEF OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN
NATIONAL DEFENCE FORCE
SECRETARY FOR DEFENCE
DIRECTOR-GENERAL DEPARTMENT
MILITARY VETERANS
JUDGMENT Second Respondent
Third Respondent
Fourth Respondent
Fifth Respondent
Sixth Respondent
Recordal: This judgment shall, for the benefit of the 9000 applicants , be
translated into lsiZulu. The translation is appended hereunder. Where
there are differences in interpretation between the English and the lsiZulu
texts, the English text is applicable.
SWANEPOEL J:
[1] During the period between approximately 1960 and 1994 various
anti-apartheid organizations fought an armed struggle against the
apartheid regime. Millions of lives were affected by the war. Once the
armed struggle neared its end, it became apparent that provision had to
be made to accommodate those persons who had been part of the armed
forces of the liberation movements. Therefore , during the Codesa
negotiations the various political parties attempted to reach consensus
about the manner in which soldiers from the armed forces would be
integrated into the South African Defence Force (as it was then known).
2
[2] The first to fourth applicants are members of the erstwhile Kwa
Zulu Self Protection Force ("KSPF"). The fifth to nine thousandth
respondents are alleged to also be members of the KSPF, albeit that none
of the latter are identified by name. The applicants say in the founding
affidavit that their names would be made available to Court, which never
happened.
[3] The applicants say that as former soldiers in the KSPF they were
entitled to have been integrated into the SANDF, and that their exclusion
from the integration process was unconstitutional. They seek to be
integrated into the SANDF, with full benefits and with effect from April
1994.
[4] The notice of motion set out the relief that the applicants seek:
[4.1] That a declaratory order be made that the exclusion of the
KSPF from the definition of 'armed force' and their resulting
exclusion from the integration process be declared
unconstitutional ;
[4.2) An order that the Termination of Integration Intake Act, 44
of 2001 is unconstitutional;
[4.3) An order declaring the respondents' decision not to
integrate the KSPF into the SANDF to be unconstitutional ;
3
[4.4] An order directing the applicants to be retrospectively
integrated into the SANDF with effect from 27 April 1994;
[4.5] An order directing that the applicants are entitled to all
benefits attached to their ranks, and to subsequent promotions,
with effect from 27 April 1994;
[4.6] An order that the applicants be integrated into the SANDF
[4. 7] Costs.
[5] The first respondent abides the decision of the Court, while the
remaining respondents oppose the application.
[6] The applicant delivered a notice of amendment during August
2024. The notice sought to introduce relief relating to the inclusion
of KSPF members onto the Military Veterans database , and an
order that they are entitled to all benefits arising from the Military
Veterans Act, 18 of 2011. The respondents opposed the
amendment, and the applicants never brought an application for
leave to effect the amendment. At the hearing of the matter the
amendment was formally abandoned . It is therefore only the relief
sought in the original notice of motion that I have to adjudicate
upon.
[7] I must add, that the applicants took a number of in limine points in
their reply, relating to the authority of the deponent to the
4
answering affidavit to depose to the affidavit, and attacking his
personal knowledge of the facts. These were not persisted with in
argument , wisely so, I believe. A deponent does not have to be
authorized to depose to facts within his knowledge . Furthermore ,
the papers do not reveal any serious factual disputes. The issue
between the parties relates to the interpretation of the various
statutes.
[8] The applicants also abandoned their attack on the constitutionality
of the Termination of Integration Intake Act, 44 of 2001 ("the
Termination Act"). That leaves one vexed question: Should the
applicants have been integrated into the defence force in 1994,
and was their exclusion unconstitutional. With the applicants
having foregone the attack on the Termination Act, a further
question is, even if the applicants should have been integrated into
the SANDF in 1994, whether the Termination Act prohibits their
integration?
[9] Section 224 of the Constitution , 200 of 1993 ("the Interim
Constitution") provided for the establishment of the South African
National Defence Force ("the SANDF"). The relevant subsectio ns
are (1) and (2), and read as follows:
"224 Establishment of National Defence Force
(1) The National Defence Force is hereby established as the
only defence force for the Republic.
5
(2) The National Defence Force shall at its establishment
consist of all members of-
(a) the South African Defence Force;
(b) any defence force of any area forming part of the
national territory; and
(c) any armed force as defined in section 1 of the
Transitional Executive Council Act, 151 of 1993;
and whose names, at the commencement of this
Constitution, are included in a certified personnel
register referred to in section 16 (3) or (9) of the said
Act: Provided that this subsection shall not apply to
members of any such defence or armed force if the
political party under whose authority and control it stands
or with which it is associated and whose objectives it
promotes did not take part in the first election of the
National Assembly and the provincial legislatures under
this Constitution. "
[1 O] I have highlighted a part of the passage above, as it is, in my view,
the crux to this case. The applicant's case is that they fall under
subsection (2) (c) above. It is common cause that the KSPF was a force
that fell under the control and authority of the lnkatha Freedom Party, a
party that participated in the 1994 elections, and whose members held
office in the Cabinet thereafter.
6
[11] Section 1 of the Transitional Executive Council Act, 151 of 1993
("the TEC Act") defines an 'armed force' as any force not established by
or under any law and which is under the authority and control of, or
associated with and promotes the objectives of, a participant in the
council. It must be noted that lnkatha did not participate in the Transitional
Executive Council, but it did participate in the 27 April 1994 election. For
purposes of this judgment , I shall assume that the KSPF is an armed force
within the meaning of section 1 of the TEC Act.
[12] Section 241 of the Constitution , 108 of 1996 ("the Constitution")
provided that Schedule 6 thereof applied to any transition to the new
constitutional order established by the new Constitution . Annexure D (3)
of Schedule 6 to the Constitution provided for an amendment to the
proviso to section 224 of the Interim Constitution, but otherwise the
wording of section 224 was retained. The new proviso reads:
"Provided that this subsection shall also apply to members of any armed
force which submitted its personnel lists after the commencement
of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 200 of 1993),
but before the adoption of the new constitutional text as envisaged
in section 73 of that Constitution , if the political organization under
whose authority and control it stands or with which it is associated and
whose objectives it promotes did participate in the Transitional Executive
Council or did take part in the first election of the National Assembly and
the provincial legislatures under the said Constitution. "
7
[13] Once again I have highlighted the part of the text that I believe to
be crucial to this application.
[14] There is no submission made by the applicants that lnkatha
complied with its obligation to submit certified personnel lists. The
applicant's papers are silent on this issue. Even after I afforded the
applicant's counsel an opportunity to scrutinize the papers again and to
point out to me where the applicants make the averment that lnkatha had
submitted certified personnel lists, counsel was unable to do so. The only
reasonable conclusion is that the averment is not made because lnkatha
did not submit the lists.
[15] During 1996 the crisis relating to the exclusion of the KSPF from
the SANDF came to a head, and pursuant to a decision taken by the
Cabinet, it was agreed that some 2000 KSPF members would be
incorporated into the SANDF. The KSPF submitted a list of personnel
from which the SANDF could interview and, if appropriate, appoint
members of the KSPF. The normal recruitment procedures applied to this
process.
[16] This list, the applicants say, was the list that is referred to in section
224 of the Interim Constitution. The difficulty that I have with this argument
is that the list submitted in 1996 was not submitted as part of the
constitutional process of integration as provided for in the Interim and in
the final Constitution. It was a separate political process during which a
personnel list was provided, after the parties had arrived at an agreement.
8
Consequently, the refusal to integrate the KSPF into the SANDF is
directly the result of the failure of lnkatha to comply with the requirement
of providing a certified personnel list of its members. The KSPF's
exclusion is thus not unconstitutional.
[17] Crucially, I have no idea whether any of the applicants before court
were even included in the 1996 list. The applicants chose not to disclose
that information to me. I cannot, therefore, even if I regard the list
submitted in terms of the 1996 incorporation process as the applicable
list, find that these particular applicants are members of an armed force
whose names were included on a personnel list as envisaged by section
224 of the Interim Constitution.
[18] A final nail in the proverbial coffin of this application is the
Termination Act. Section 5 of the Termination Act imposed a deadline of
31 March 2002 by which members of armed forces had to have entered
into employment agreements with the SANDF. If a member had not
entered into an employment agreement by that date, the window had
closed on integration into the SANDF.
[19] It is on the basis of the Termination Act that Mr. Bruinders SC
argued on behalf of the respondents that, notwithstanding anything else,
the applicant's entitlement to be integrated had expired. I agree. Even if
the applicants had proven that they were constitutionally entitled to be
integrated into the SANDF, which I do not believe that they had, their
claim to be integrated would have expired.
9
[20] The respondents argued in their papers that the claim had
prescribed by virtue of the provisions of the Prescription Act, 68 of 1969
("the Prescription Act"), as it arose more than three years before the
application was brought. In my view, this application does not concern a
'debt' in terms of the Prescription Act. Although Mr Bruinders did not
pursue this argument, I must, briefly, deal with the issue.
[21] In Electricity Supply Commission v Stewarts and Lloyds of SA (Pty)
Ltd1 ("Escom") the court held that a 'debt' is "that which is owed or due;
anything (as money, goods or services) which one person is under
obligation to pay or render to another". In Desai NO v Desai and Others2
the Court seemed to espouse a wider definition. However, the
Constitutional Court has now explained in Makate v Vodacom Ltd3 that
the approach in Escom is correct, and that, to the extent that Desai
suggests a wider definition, it is wrong. The Constitutional Court held in
Off-beat Holiday Club and Another v Sanbonani Holiday Spa Shareblock
Ltd and Others4 that a claim in terms of section 252 of the Companies
Act, 1973 was not susceptible to prescription as it was not a debt under
the Prescription Act. The Court said5:
"The claim is a far cry from something owed or due, or an obligation to
pay money, deliver goods or render services to another. If anything, it is
the right to seek a judicial determination as to whether the applicants are
entitled to a statutory remedy, the entitlement to which is determined on
equitable grounds .... "
10
[22] In my view, the applicant's claim is a statutory claim that is not a
'debt' for purposes of the Prescription Act, as it is not something that is
owed or due, or an obligation to pay money or deliver goods or render
services.
[23] As is evident from the above, the application must fail. I shall apply
the Biowatch principle6 with regard to the costs. The applicants were
pursuing what they believed to be their Constitutional rights, and it would
be appropriate not to follow the normal rule, which is that costs follow the
result. Furthermore , Mr. Bruinders indicated that the respondents did not
seek a costs order.
[24] I make the following order:
The application is dismissed.
Okuqoshiwe : Lesi sahlulelo sizobhalwa ngesiZulu ukuze bonke
abamangali abangu-9000 bezwe. lsinqumo sesiZulu zifakwe ngemuva.
Uma kukhona impikiswano phakathi kwesilZulu neSingisi,
kuzosetshenziswa umbhalo weSingisi.
SWANEPOEL J:
[1] Eminyakeni kusuka ku 1960 kuya ku 1994 izinhlangano
ezaziphikisa ubandlululo zalwisana nobandlululo . lzimpi zathinta izigidi
zabantu. Kuthe lezizimpi seziya ngasekupheleni , kwacaca ukuthi kumele
11
kwenziwe uhlelo oluzobhekelela laba ababesemibuthweni eyayilwela
inkululeko. Ngakho-ke kwizingxo xo zeCodesa amaqembu ezepolitiki
ahlukahlukene Azama ukufinyelela kwisivumelwano ngendlela
ayezothathwa ngayo amasosha ayelwa izimpi zobandlululo azofakwa
kuMbutho wezokuvikela wase Ningizimu Afrika.
[2] Abammangali bokuqala abane babengamalunga e KwaZulu Natal
Self Protection Force (KSPF). Owesihlanu kuya koka -9000 nabo kuthiwa
babengamalunga e KSPF kodwa amagama abo awadalulwanga
Abamamangali bathe encwadini yabo yecala bazowasho amagama abo
eNkantolo kodwa kwangenzeka.
[3] Abammangali bathi njengoba babengamasosha eKSPF
kwakuyilungelo labo ukuthi bafakwe kuMbutho wezokuvikela wase
Ningizimu Afrika (SANDF), nokuthi ukuvalelwa kwabo ngaphandle kule
nqubo yokufakwa kwi SANDF kwakuphambene noMthethosisekelo.
Bafuna ukufakwa kuMbutho wezokuvikela eNingizimu Africa-SANDF,
bathole zonke izimfanelo kusukela ngo April 1994.
[4] lncwadi yecala icacisile ukuthi abammangali bafunani.
[4.1] Ukuthi inkantolo ikhiphe umyalelo othi ukungabalulwa kwe
KSPF njengeqembu elaluwumbutho ohlomile okwaholela ekutheni
ingafakwa kwi SANDF, lesisenzo asithathwe ngesiphambene
nomthethosisekelo .
12
[4.2) Kukhishwe umyalelo wokuthi umthetho wokunqamula
ukuthathwa kwamasosha wango 2001 (Termination of lnterfration
Intake Act 44 of 2001) yayiphambene noMthethosisekelo.
[4.3) lnkantolo ichithe isinqumo sabamangalelwa sokungawafaki
amasosha eKSPF ku SANDF njengesiphambene
nomthethosisekelo.
[4.4) Umyalelo othi abamangali mabafakwe kuSANDF kusukela
ngomhlaka 27 April 1994;
[4.5) Umyalelo othi abamangali kuyilungelo labo ukuthola zonke
izinzuzo ezihambisana nezikhundla zabo, baphinde banyuswelwe
ezikhundleni kusukela ngomhlaka 27 April 1994.
[4.6) Umyalelo othi abamangali bafakwe kwiSANDF.
[4.7) lzindleko.
[5] Ummangalelwa wokuqala uyahambisana nesinqumo seNkantolo,
abanye abamangalelwa bayasiphikisa nesicelo.
[6] Abamangali baletha isaziso sokulungisa amaphepha abo ngo
August 2024. lsaziso sasimayelana nokufakwa kwamalunga eKSPF
ohlelweni lwamasosha asathatha umhlalaphansi, baphinde bathole
zonke izinzuzo ezihambisana nezimpesheni zamasosha (Military
Veterans Act 18 of 2011 ). Abamangalelwa baphikisana nezinguquko ,
abamangali abasifakanga isicelo sokuthi lezizinguquko mazenzeke .
13
Kuthe uma sekulalelwe icala abamangali bafaka isicelo sokuthi
abasaqhubeki nesicelo sezinguquko. lsinqumo engizosithatha sizogxila
kwisicelo esafakwa ngencwadi yokuqala eyafakwa abamangali.
[7] Kuzofanele ngikuveze nokuthi abamangali baqala ngokuphikisana
namaphuzu amaninganana ligakaqalwa udaba njengokuthi ngabe
wayenalo yini igunya lakubhala incwadi yokuphendla lo owaphendula
amaphepha enkantolo. Abazange besaqhubeka nalempikiswano lokho
engikubone kuwubuhlakani. Obhala incwadi efungelweyo akumele
ukuthi aze anikwe igunya lokubhala ngamaqiniso awaziyo. Ngaphezu
kwalokho, amaphepha awakhulumi ngamaphuzu okuphikiswana ngawo.
lmpikiswano phakathi kwabathintekayo imayelana nencazelo
yemithetho.
[8] Abamangali baphinde bayeka ukuphikisana nokuba semthethweni
kokumiswa kokuthathwa kwamasosha. Lokhu kushiya umbuzo oyindida,
ekutheni ngabe kwakufanele yini abamangali bafakwe kuSANDF ngo
1994, nokuthi ukungafakwa kwabo kwakuphambene yini
nomthethosisekelo . Njengoba abamangali beyekile ukuphikisa umthetho
owawumisa ukuthathwa kwamasosha, umbuzo olandelayo uthi nokuba
babefakiwe kwiSANDF ngo 1994, ngabe umthetho onqamula ukuthathwa
kwabo uyabavimba yini manje.
[9] Umthetho wesikhashana (Section 224 of the Constitution, 200 of
1993) ("the Interim Constitution") wachaza ngokusungulwa koMbutho
14
wezokuvikela eNingizimu Afrika iSANDF. lzigatshana zomthetho
ezibalulekile u (1) no (2) zifundeka kanje:
'224 Ukusungulwa koMbutho wezokuvikela kazwelonke.
(1) Umbutho wezokuvikela kazwelonke wasungulwa njengawo
wodwa umbutho wezwe.
(2) Ekusungulweni koMbutho wezokuvikela kazwelonke kwaba
ukuthi uyokwakhiwa iwowonke amalunga alandelayo:
(a) Ombutho wezokuvikela Eningizimu Afrika.
(b) Noma ngabe imuphi umbutho wokuvikela wanoma iyiphi
indawo eyingxenye kwZwelonke.
(c) Nanoma imuphi umbutho ohlomile njengokuchazwa
kwawo kumthetho (Section 1 of the Transitional
Executive Council Act, 151 of 1993.)
labo amagama abo abhalwa emabhukwini aqinisekisiwe kuqala
lomthethosisekelo, ebhukwini olunohlu lwamagama oluchaziwe
kwisigaba 16 (3) noma kwisigaba (9) salowo mthetho: Lomthetho
angeke usebenze kunoma imuphi umbutho wokuvikela noma ohlomile,
uma kungukuthi iqembu lezepolitiki elilawula lowombutho noma umbutho
ohlobene neqembu lezepolitiki elingazange laba ingxenye yokhetho
lokuqala lukazwelonke noma olwezifunda ngaphansi komthethosisekelo.
15
[1 O] Lombhalo ongenhla ngiwubhale ngamaqophelo amakhulu ngenxa
yokuthi iyona ndikimba yaloludaba, ngokubona kwami. Abamangali bathi
bona udaba lwabo lungena kwisigaba (2) (c) ongenhla. Kuyavunyelwana
ngokuthi lkspf kwakuwumbutho ongaphansi kwelFP futhi ulawulwa iyona,
okuyiqembu elalisokhethweni luka 1994, amalunga ayo aqokwa angena
kwi Cabinet.
[11] Ngokwesigaba sokuqala somthetho womkhandlu omkhulu
obekwe isikhashana wango 1993 -Section 1 of the Transitional Executive
Council Act 151 of 1993. ("the TEC Act") uchaza umbutho wezimpi
njengombutho ongasungulwanga ngokusemthethweni futhi olawulwa
noma ogunyazwe,noma ozihlanganisa noma ofeza izinhloso, zelunga
lomkhandlu. Kufanele kuphawuleke ukuthi lnkatha ayizange ibe ingxenye
yomkhandlu wokufuduka , kodwa yayiyingxenye yokhetho lwangomhlaka
27 April 1994. Kulesisahlulelo ngizothatha ngokuthi lkspf iwumbutho
ohlomile ngokwencazelo yesigaba sokuqala somthehto wokufuduka.
[12] lsigaba 241 somthethosisekelo 108 wango 1996 ('the
Constitution") isahluko 6 ungena kulona lonke ushintsho
lomthethosisekelo olusungulwe kumthethosisekelo omusha. U Annexure
D (3) wesahluko 6 kwezomthethosisekelo wenze izinguquko kumthetho
okwisigaba 224 kumthethosisekelo wesikhashana , kodwa noma kunjalo
ngendlela lesi sigaba 224 esibhalwe ngayo usenjalo. Umthetho omusha
ufundeka kanje:
16
"Lesi sigatshana somthetho siyosebenza nanoma ngabe ikumaphi
amalunga ombutho ohlomile abaletha uhlu lwamagama emva
kokuba sekuqale ukusebenza umthethosisekelo wase
Ningizimu Afrika ( Act 2000 of 1993), ngaphambi kokuba
kwamukelwe umthethosisekelo omusha ngendlela obhalwe
ngayo kwisigaba 73 (Section 73) walowomthethosisekelo ,
uma iqembu lenhlangano ligunyaziwe ukuthi lingaphatha ,
linemithetho elilawulayo futhi lizibandakanya ekutheni
ligqugquzela izinhloso zalo lingenelile kuMkhandlu wofuduko
wesikhashana iTEC futhi langenelile kukhetho lokuqala kwi
sishayamthetho sikaZwelonke kanye nolwesifundazwe ngaphansi
kwalo Mthethosisekelo ".
(13] Ngiphindile futhi ngayigqamisa ingxenye yemibhalo engikholelwa
ukuthi ibalulekile kulesi sicelo.
[14] Akukho engikutshelwe abamangali ukuthi lnkatha isenzile
isithembiso sokuletha uhlu lwamagama abantu. Amaphepha abamangali
awasho lutho ngaloludaba . Ngisho sengimnikile uMmeli wabamangali
ithuba lokuthi aphinde abhekisise amaphepha angikhombise lapho
abamangali bezisholo bona ngokwabo ukuthi lnkatha yaluhambisa uhlu
lwamagama abantu, uMmeli akakwazanga ukukwenza lokho. lsizathu
engiphetha ngaso ukuthi akushiwongo lokhu ngoba lnkatha
ingalulethanga uhlu lwamagama abantu.
17
[15) Ngesikhathi sango 1996 lenhlekelele yokuvalelwa ngaphandle
kwamasosha eKSFP kwi SANDF yafakelwa izibuko, kulandela isinqumo
esasithathwe umkhandlu kaHulumeni , kwavunyelwana ukuthi amanye
amalunga ayizinkulungwane ezimbili (2000) azothathwa azofakwa kwi
SANDF. I KSPF yahambisa uhlu lwamagama abantu okwakuzokwenz iwa
inhlolokhono kubo bese kuthi ngesikhathi esifanele baqoke amalunga
eKSPF. lnqubo ejwayelekile yokuqasha yasetshenziswa .
[16] Loluhlu lwamagama abantu, abamangalelwa bathi yilo
okukhulunywa ngalo kwisigaba 224 somthethosisekelo wesikhashana
(section 224 of the Interim Constitution). lnkinga enginayo kulenkulumo
ukuthi loluhlu lwamagama abantu olwalethwa ngo 1996 alulethelwa
njengxenye yomthethosisekelo wokuqashwa kwamasosha njengoba
kuchaziwe lapha kumthethosisekelo wesikhashana kanye nalo
owaphasiswa. Kwakungenye inqubo yepolitiki ehlukile lapho kwalethwa
khona amagama abantu, ngemuva kokuthi lamaqembu efinyelele
kwisivumelwano.
[17] Kubalulekile ukuthi, anginalo ulwazi noma ukhona yini
kulabamangali abaphambi kwenkantolo igama lakhe elabhalwa ohlini
lwamagama ngo 1996. Amangali bakhethe ukungakudaluli lokho kimi.
Noma kungathiwa loluhlu lwamagama abantu aphambu kwami amagama
abhalwa ngo 1996, kodwa angeke ngikwazi ukuthi labamangali
abaphambu kwami amalunga ombutho ohlomile, amagama abo
ayebhalwe ohlwini olubalulwa isigaba 224 sothethosisekelo
wesikhashana
18
[18] Lomthetho wokuqedwa kokuthathwa kwamasosha afakwe
embuthweni iwona oshayelela isipikili sokugcina kulesisicelo. Umthetho
okwisigaba 5 sokuqedwa kokuthathwa kwamasosha wabeka usuku
lomhlaka 31 March 2002 njengosuku oluwumnqamulajuqu , ukuthi
amalungu ombutho ohlomile abe esengenile kwisivumelwano
sokuqashwa iSANDF ngaleso sikhathi. Uma ilunga lingangenile
kwisivumelwano sokuqashwa ngalolosuku , isikhathi yskuqashwa
kwamasosha siyobe sesivaliwe .
[19] Yilezo zizathu ke zalomthetho wokuqeda kokuthathwa
kwamasosha uMnu. Bruinders SC ame ngazo emele abamangalelwa ,
ngele kwalokho , ilungelo lokufakwa kwamasosha embuthweni
laseliphelelwe isikhathi. Ngiyavuma. Ngisho kungathiwa abamangali
bavezile ukuthi kwakuyilungelo labo ngokomthethosisekelo ukuthi
bafakwe kwiSANDF , okuwukuthi angikholwa ukuthi babenalo lelo
lungelo, isikhathi sabo sokuthi bafakwe kumbutho wokuvikela sasiyobe
sesiphelelwe .
[20] Abapmangalelwa bami ngelithi lelilungelo laseliphelelwe isikhathi
ngenxa yomthetho obalula izikhathi wango 1969 isigaba 68, ngenxa
yokuthi lesisicelo safakwa sekuphele iminyaka emithathu kwenzeka
isigameko. Ngokombono wami lesisicelo sabamangali asingeni
ngaphansi kwalomthetho ngoba asikhulumi ngokukweletwa kwemali.
Yize noma uMnu Bruinders engaqhubekanga kakhulu ngaloludaba
enkulumeni yakhe angiluveze loludaba kafushane.
19
[21] Ecaleni (Electricity Supply Commission v Stewarts and Lloyds of
SA (Pty) Ltd1 ("Escom") inkantolo yalawula ukuthi isikweletu ilokho
okukweletwa umuntu noma okufanele kunikezwe noma kwenzelwe
omunye umuntu, okweletayo usuke ephoqelekile ukukhokhela omunye
umuntu. Kwelika Desai NO v Desat2 nabanye iNkantolo kwabukeka
sengathi ifuna ukuchaza kabanzi. Kodwa-ke iNkantolo
yomthethosisekelo isikuchazile ecaleni lika Makate v Vodacom Ltd3,
ukuthi ilungile indlela okwenziwe ngayo kwelika Escom, incazelo ebanzi
kwelikaDesai ayilungile. lnkantolo yomthethosisekelo yalawula kwele Off
beat Holiday Club and Another v Sanbonani Holiday Spa Shareblock Ltd
and Others4 kanye nabanye ukuthi icala lombango ngokomthetho
okwisigaba 252 wezenkampani wango 1973 wawungasebenzi
kulomthetho wesikweletu. Kusho iNkantolo:5
"lcala lombango lihluke kakhulu kunesikweleti osikweletayo noma
okumele usikhokhe noma isibophezelo sokukhokha imali, okanye
uhambise impahla noma wenze umsebenzi. Uma kungabakhona
kungaba ukucela ilungelo kwezomthetho ukuthi ingabe
abamangali bangasizakala yini ngenye indlela ewumthetho , noma
angeke bahlukaniselwe yini ngokulinganayo.
[22] Ngokombono wami, icala labamangalelwa alisilona icala
lemali/isikweletu ngoba akuyona imali ekweletwayo okumele ikhokhwe
futhi asikho isibopho sokukhokha imali okanye ukuhambisa impahla
noma ukwenza umsebenzi.
20
[23] Njengoba kunobufakazi ngenhla lesisicelo kumele singaphumeleli.
Ngizowusebensisa lowamthetho ka Biowatch6 malunga nezindleko.
Abamangali bebekhuluma ngezinto abebekholelwa ukuthi
bekungamalungelo abo omthethosisekelo, futhi kuzoba kahle ukuthi
kungalandelwa umgomo ojwayelek ile, lo othi izindleko zilandela
umiphume la. Ngaphezu kwalokho, uMnu Bruinders ukuvezile ukuthi
abamanga lelwa abazange bacele umyalelo wezindleko.
[24] Ngikhipha umyalolo othi:
lsicelo siyachithwa.
Counsel for the applicant:
Instructed by:
Counsel for respondents:
Instructed by:
Date heard:
Date of judgment: SWANEPOELJ
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION PRETORIA
Adv. C Maswanganyi
Adv. P Dhlamini
Adv. B Nchabeleng
Sekati Monyane Attorneys
Inc.
Adv. T Bruinders SC
Adv. K Millard
The State Attorney
7 February 2025
29 April 2025
21
1 Electricity Supply Commission v Stewarts and Lloyds of SA (Pty) Ltd 1981 (3) SA 340
(A)
2 Desai NO v Desai and Others 1996 (1) SA 141 (A)
3 Makate v Vodacom Ltd 2016 (4) SA 121 (CC)
4 Off-beat Holiday Club and Another v Sanbonani Holiday Spa Shareblock Ltd and
Others 2017 (5) SA 9 (CC)
5 At para (49)
6 Biowatch Trust v Registrar Genetic Resources and Others 2009 (6) SA 232 (CC)
22