REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE Number: 2023/096885
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES; MO
(3) REVISED: NO > /
15 AUGUST 2025
In the matters between:-
JOHANNES PAUL STRIKE DZUMBA Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND
MILITARY VETERANS First Respondent
SOUTH AFRICAN MILITARY OMBUD Second Respondent
CHIEF OF SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL
DEFENCE FORCE Third Respondent
SURGEON GENERAL Fourth Respondent
JUDGMENT
2
H F JACOBS, AJ
[1] The applicant is a staff sergeant in the South African Military Health Service.
He applies for an order reviewing and setting aside a finding by the second respondent
(the Military Ombud) dismissing his complaint regarding his promotion and
remustering under section 6(7)(a) of the Military Ombud Act, 4 of 2012 (“the Ombud
Act”), as well as an order that the applicant must be remustered from the Military
Support Operation to Human Resources, as approved by the Surgeon General, and
that he be promoted to Warrant Officer 2; alternatively, he requests that “the matter be
referred back to the” Military Ombud for a fresh investigation under section 4 of the
Ombud Act.
[2] Both respondents oppose the application and seek its dismissal. The first
respondent seeks no costs order against the applicant, but the second respondent
does.
[3] The applicant appeared in person before me. Much court time was spent
on giving the applicant an opportunity to present his case. In the replying affidavit, he
seems to assume that he is free to broaden the scope of his challenge beyond what
is stated in his notice of motion. | limit myself to the challenge outlined in the applicant's
notice of motion.
[4] Paragraph 1 of the notice of motion seeks the “remustering” of the applicant
and his "promotion." Remustering is a military term used here for transferring a military
employee from one division or core to another, specifically from the Military Support
Operation to Human Resources. The applicant initiated this application around
September 2023. In February 2024, approximately four months after the application
was filed, the applicant was remustered, as shown in annexure “AA1” to the first
respondent's answering affidavit, which the applicant has simply denied in reply. | find,
3
as | must, that the respondents have presented facts in their answering affidavit which
| should accept and base my decision on, illustrating that the applicant was indeed
remustered as claimed and that the relief concerning his remustering is now moot.
[5] As far as the promotion of the applicant is concerned, the following is
relevant. In paragraph 18 of the first respondent's answering affidavit, the first
respondent refers to the applicable promotion policy to which the applicant is subject.
The first respondent explains that after the applicant was remustered from Military
Support Operator to the Human Resources department, as stated in the first
respondent's letter to that effect dated 16 February 2024 (annexure “AA1” referred to
above), the applicant (like all other employees of the respondents) became subject to
the promotional policy of members of the South African National Defence Force, dated
9 April 2001 (annexure “AA4” to the first respondent's answering affidavit). The policy
document, which | do not quote in this judgment to any extent, expressly provides that
for a promotion to be considered, there must be a suitable vacancy that is authorised
and funded. The availability of a promotional position for the promotion of a staff
member makes common sense and appears to be entirely rational.
[6] In his replying affidavit, the applicant denies the assertion of the first
respondent and maintains that the policy document in question is not the only
document required for adjudicating his case. He refers to several exceptions listed in
the policy document. | could not find any reference or reliance by the applicant in his
founding papers on the exceptions he raises in reply. The applicant chose not to
mention the promotion policy document (he does not challenge the existence of the
document or its date at all) in his papers.
[7] Under the circumstances, the applicant has failed, in my view, to
demonstrate that he was treated differently from what is outlined in the policy