Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs v Maphanga

The respondent, Mr Jabulani Crosby Maphanga, was formerly employed by the Natal Provincial Administration and later absorbed into the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs following post-1994 rationalisation. He alleged unfair treatment and failure to promote him. From 1998 onwards, he pursued relief in multiple forums, including the Labour Court, Industrial Court, bargaining councils, and various extra-curial bodies. Most proceedings failed on jurisdictional or procedural grounds and were never decided on the merits. After accepting a voluntary severance package in 2000, he later revived disputes and, in 2016, signalled an intention to sue the MEC, including a High Court action for damages relating to the alleged unlawful sale in execution of his house. The MEC applied to the High Court for an order declaring Mr Maphanga a vexatious litigant and interdicting him from instituting further proceedings without leave, relying on the Vexatious Proceedings Act 3 of 1956 and alternatively the court’s inherent powers under s 173 of the Constitution. The High Court largely dismissed the application, granting only limited interdictory relief against defamatory conduct. The MEC appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs. The respondent’s cross-appeal was struck from the roll. The High Court’s order, granting only limited interdictory relief against defamatory conduct and refusing broader restraint and declaratory orders, stood.

The case clarifies the strict requirements for declaring a litigant vexatious under the Vexatious Proceedings Act and reaffirms the narrow, cautious exercise of courts’ inherent powers under s 173 of the Constitution. It confirms that bargaining councils and extra-curial complaint mechanisms are not 'courts' for purposes of the Act and underscores the constitutional importance of access to courts. The judgment is significant in delineating the relationship between statutory mechanisms and inherent judicial powers in controlling abuse of process.