Page 2
arrival in the DRC , found that accommodation had not been arranged. The
respondent then arranged accommodation in a hotel for the applicants. They
continued receiving a daily subsistence allowance, which included a breakfast
allowance, whilst it was established later that the hotel was providing a rate
inclusive of all meals.
[2] The applicants approached court after hearing informally on 27 October 2025,
shortly after their return from the DRC, that the deductions from their salaries
would take place during November.
[3] Attempts by the applicants to get engage with and get clarity from the Minister
were unsuccessful.
[4] The first applicant is the only party who has an affidavit in support of his
application. The remaining 101 SANDF members did not depose to affidavits.
Their names appear on an attendance list, and it is apparent that they support
the first applicant’s application. However, they are not formally before court as
parties as they have not been properly cited and none of them ha s filed an
affidavit confirming participation as applicants in the proceedings.
[5] Prior to their return, a general in the SANDF notified those that were deployed
that corrective measures would take place upon their return in terms of an
existing policy to recover duplicate expenditures.
[6] The Minister contends that the application is not urgent. Reference is made
to a communiqué dated 04 August 2025, where the employees were notified
of the need to recoup duplicated expenses for breakfasts. However, the
Page 3
communiqué expressly stated that an investigation would first take place and
after the investigation is completed, all members will be fully informed. The
Minister contends that this investigation has not even started and may take
months. He further denied that there would be any deductions during
November 2025.
[7] It is apparent that the applicants first want ed an interdict restraining the
deductions before negotiations with the Minister on the deductions. This is
improper as there is a grievance procedure available to SANDF members who
feel aggrieved by decisions affecting them. No grievance was laid and
therefore an internal remedy was not pursued. An alternative remedy is fatal
to interdictory relief. That route is still open to the applicants.
[8] The matter is accordingly not urgent. However, the duplication of expenses
appears to be because of an administrative error on the part of the Minister’s
officials. When the applicants made enquiries about this, they were met with
silence. This informs the costs order below.
[9] The failure to communicate clearly with members on deductions from their
salaries caused by administrative bungling is a matter on the SANDF and the
Minister were required to engage meaningfully. The failure to do so,
particularly after the applicants’ return from their deployment, is regrettable.
[10] In the premises the following order is made:
1. The matter is struck from the roll for lack of urgency.
2. No order as to costs