' .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO.: 2025-127612
DELETE WHICHEm IS NOT APPLICABLE
(l)REPORTABLE(W)'
(2}OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES:@
(3)REVISED: YES
In the matter between:
THE SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL MILITARY
VETERANS ASSOCIATION ("SANMVA")
and
MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS
DIRECTOR-GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY
VETERANS
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
Applicant
First Respondent
Second Respondent
Third Respondent
Delivered: This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is rellected
herein and is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' legal
representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on
CaseLines. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 10:00 on 26 August
2026.
JUDGMENT
-2 -
SUMMARY:
Review - what is a decision
INTRODUCTION :
[1] The application involves a review of a "decision" to resume a process,
commonly referred to as "Data Verification of Military Veterans". The review
was not brought in terms of Rule 53 as is the custom. However, the
provisions of Rule 53 can be waived by an applicant.1 Therefore, not much
turns upon this fact.
BACKGROUND :
[21 Because there had been no provision for payment of pensions and similar
benefits to veterans who served in resistance armies such as "MK" and "Apia"
prior to 1994, a process was put in place to address the plight of those
veterans. This process culminated in the Military Veterans Act, 18 of 2011
("the Act").
[3] There is obviously a risk that opportunistic individuals may abuse the system
and claim pensions whilst they are not bona fide military veterans. The Act
also seeks to address this risk by putting systems in place for data
verification. Applicant largely relies on the Act to found its standing for the
review.
THE DECISION WH CH IS ATTACKED:
[4) Prayer 1 of the Amended Notice of Motion identifies the relevant decision as
"the decision or action of verification process as contained on annexure
"FA 16" issued through a media alert on 3 June 2025 purporledly exercised by
Van Loggerenberg - Erasmus Superior Court Practice, RS30, 2026, D l Rule 53 - 16A; Mamadi v
Premier of Limpopo Province, 2024 ( 1) SA l (CC) at para [29).
- 3 -
the First and/or Second Respondent in terms of Section 6 of the Military
Veterans Act 18 of 2021 ... ".
BASIS OF OPPOSITION:
[5] Respondents oppose the application essentially on the following grounds:
• Annexure "FA16" is not a "decision" as defined in the Promotion of
Administrative Justice Act, 3 of 2000, but simply an announcement of
a resumption of a verification process which had started years
before.
• Applicant only has observer status at the verification process.
• Applicant did not challenge the decision to appoint the verification
panel.
POINT IN LIMINE:
[6] Applicant argued at the outset that the deponent to Respondents' Answering
Affidavit had not been duly authorised to represent Respondents and that
those Respondents should at least have filed Confirmatory Affidavits.
[7] It is trite that the deponent to an affidavit need not be authorised by the party
concerned to depose thereto. It is the institution of proceedings or opposition
thereto that must be authorised. See in this regard the decision of Ganes &
Another v Telkom Namibia Ltd, 2004 (3) SA 615 (SCA) at 624G - H. The
proper manner to challenge authority in terms of the rules is to deliver a Rule
?-notice challenging a party's legal representatives to prove their authority.
Applicant does not rely on such a notice, and it is reasonable to infer that
none was served.
-4 -
[8} In the premises, the point in limine has no merit and the court is entitled to
have regard to the Answering Affidavit. Even had the Answering Affidavit not
been properly before me, Applicant is still required to make a case in its
founding papers. For reasons dealt with below, I am of the view that it has
failed to do so.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT:
[9] Applicant referred to various sections of the Act which I summarise briefly:
9.1 Section 3(2) stipulates the aims of any policy regarding military
veterans, including the provision of benefits and services.
9.2 Section 6 stipulates that the Department of Military Veterans - through
the guidance of Second Respondent (the Director-General) - must
collect data and information regarding schemes and programs
dealing with military veterans; data regarding existing benefits of
those veterans and establish a data base on those veterans and their
affairs. Such data base ought to be updated regularly to reflect the
data of persons qualifying as military veterans or dependants.
9.3 Section 7 deals with the National Military Veterans' Association.
Such association had to be established by the Director-General. The
Director-General must, in conjunction with military veterans'
organisations, create mechanisms to ensure that the association
serves as an umbrella structure representing military veterans'
organisations.
9.4 Section 8 deals with the functions of the association (such as
Applicant in casu) and stipulates that the association must:
• Perform the functions provided for in the Act;
- 5 -
• Advise the Minister on matters relating to legislation and
policy affecting military veterans as the Minister may require;
• Advise the Minister or the Director-General on any matter
relating to the affairs of military veterans that the Minister or
the Director-Genera/ may require.
APPLICANT'S STANDING TO REVIEW THE DECISION:
[1 OJ I am not convinced that the Act provides Applicant with the necessary
standing for the review it seeks, for the following reasons:
10.1 The establishment of the data verification panel does not overlap with
the functions of the association as dealt with in Section 8 of the Act.
It is noteworthy that the association is to advise the Minister or the
Director-General on matters relating to the affairs of military veterans
that the Minister or the Director-Genera/ may require (my emphasis).
The Minister or the Director-General did not require Applicant to
advise on the constitution of the panel, but merely to act as
observers. Section 8 therefore does not assist Applicant.
10.2 Section 6 of the Act places the obligation to compile the database
squarely on Second Respondent (the Director-General) .and not on
Applicant.
10.3 Section 7(2) compels the Director-General to create mechanisms to
ensure that the association serves as an umbrella structure
representing military veterans' organisations. It has nothing to do
with data verification.
- 6 -
EVEN IF APPLICANT HAD STANDING, DOES IT ESTABLISH A CASE FOR
REVIEW?
[11] From Annexure "FAT' to the Founding Affidavit, it is evident that the current
verification panel was constituted during 2020 already. Annexure "FA7'' is a
letter addressed by General Mashoala on the letterhead of the Minister of
Defence. Paragraph 3 thereof identifies the members of the verification team,
including the deponent to the Answering Affidavit (retired Major General
Mashoala) as chairman. Paragraph 6 of the same letter invites certain
military veterans' organisations to nominate one observer each.
[12] From the Answering Affidavit it is evident that preparatory meetings were held
in February and April 2021 and that the verification panel commenced its
proceedings on 6 May 2021. By June 2022, the process was far advanced.
It was temporarily halted during June 2022 due to administrative challenges.
[13] From 2020 until the current application was launched, Applicant did express
its dissatisfaction with certain officials on the panel - inter alia via a letter
addressed to the Deputy President of the RSA. I regard it as unnecessary to
deal with the detail of this correspondence for the simple reason that the
decision to establish the verification panel (of 2020) was never reviewed.
The current application was only launched in August 2026.
[14} Annexure "FA16" simply announces the resumption of the process. It is
therefore merely a further stage of the process which had commenced five
years earlier. Clearly, Applicant's gripe is with the composition of the
verification panel and the limitation of its own role to observer status.
[15] Applicant's role was explicitly defined in 2020 already. It cannot now, six
years down the line, attempt to set aside a process which is far advanced.
Needless to say, by now numerous candidates have been verified. It is
certainly not in the interest of justice to disrupt such process after many State
resources have been spent.
- 7 -
[16] In any event, Applicant has chosen not to attack the material decision of
2020. In my view the communication of 2025 is a mere further
implementation of the 2020-decision. It is not an independent administrative
decision that can be reviewed - in any event not on the grounds advanced by
Applicant. Applicant is therefore the author of its own misery in that it delayed
taking legal action for approximately five years after the panel had been
constituted during 2020.
[17] In the premises, Applicant has failed to make a case for reviewing the
"decision" as reflected in Annexure "FA16". I make the following order:
(1) The application is dismissed.
(2) Applicant is ordered to pay the costs on Scale B.
APPEARANCES:
APPLICANT :
INSTRUCTED BY:
RESPONDENTS :
INSTRUCTED BY:
Adv W N Mothibe
Lefoka Inc
Adv A Moja
The State Attorney
J ERASMUS
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Electronically delivered and signed.