REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case Number: 33658/2020
(1) REPORTABLE: f
(2) OF INTEREST TQ OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: YES_|-44—
14 July 2025
DATE (otf ATURE
In the matter between:
MEC FOR HEALTH: NORTH WEST PROVINCE First Applicant
JEANETTE HUNTER N.O. Second Applicant
and
THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR First Respondent
BENJAMIN SENTSHO Second Respondent
GENL (RET) DR MOKHETHI RADEBE Third Respondent
1
ANDREW KYEREH Fourth Respondent
ELLIOT ANDREW KABELO MOTENE Fifth Respondent
ADV THELVI MMAKO Sixth Respondent
ee
JUDGMENT
Dennen ee ee
JANSE VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN J:
Introduction
[1] The applicants apply for an order reviewing and setting aside a report of the first
respondent dated 21 February 2020, in respect of allegations that the North West
Department of Health failed to process an appeal lodged by the second
respondent.
[2] The application is only opposed by the second respondent.
Parties
[3] The first Applicant is the Member of the Executive Council responsible for the
Department of Health in the North West Province (the Department’).
[4] The second Applicant, Jeanette Hunter N.O., is cited in her official capacity as
administrator of the Department.
[5] The first Respondent, the Public Protector, is cited in her official capacity as the
incumbent of the Office of the Public Protector. The first defendant filed a notice
to abide by the decision of the court.
[6] The second respondent, Benjamin Sentsho, is the subject matter of the report
prepared by office of the Public Protector.
2
[7] The third to sixth respondents are former and current employees of the
Department and was joined as respondents by an order of this court dated 13
September 2023 insofar as they may have an interest in the relief claimed herein.
Background
[8] The second respondent was appointed by the Department on a fixed term contract
for the period 1 March 2010 to 31 January 2012 as a site project manager in the
hospital revitalisation division. During the course of his fixed-term contract and
more particularly during January 2012, allegations of misconduct relating to fraud
and corruption were levelled against the second respondent.
[9] The Department decided to investigate the allegations and to extent the second
respondent's fixed-term contract to 31 January 2012 to allow for the finalisation of
the investigation.
[10] On 14 December 2012 the Department notified the second respondent that he
had been found guilty of fraud and corruption and that a sanction of dismissal
had been imposed. The second lodged an appeal against the finding during
December 2012.
[11] According to the Department and “as a result of a serious backlog of internal
appeal cases” the Department did not finalise the second respondent's appeal
prior to the expiry of his fixed term contract on 31 January 2012.
[12] The aforesaid conduct of the Department prompted the second respondent to
lay a complaint with the office of the Public Protector.
Findings and remedial action
[13] The Public Protector found that the Department's failure to process the second
respondent's appeal within 30 days after being lodged violated the provisions of
clause 8.8 of Regulation 1 of 2003. The conduct further amounted to fruitless and
wasteful expenditure in violation of the Public Finance Management Act 1 of 1999
“PFMA’. Furthermore, the second respondent had been prejudiced by the
Department’s conduct because he remains with a guilty verdict of fraud and
corruption, which is on his departmental record.
3