Mthetho Hlamandana and Another v Premier, Eastern Cape Provincial Government and Others

The applicants instituted review proceedings in relation to disciplinary proceedings conducted against the first applicant under the Eastern Cape Traditional Leadership and Governance Act 1 of 2017. The fourth respondent had been appointed by the Premier to chair the disciplinary enquiry and delivered a decision on 28 February 2022. That decision was reviewed and set aside by the High Court, which also ordered that the matter be remitted to the fourth respondent for reconsideration. Dissatisfied only with the remittal order, the applicants applied for leave to appeal, contending that remittal was incompetent, not sought in the pleadings, procedurally unfair, pointless because the fourth respondent was functus officio, and vague. The respondents did not oppose the application for leave to appeal.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The applicants were ordered to pay the costs of the application on an attorney and client scale, jointly and severally.

The judgment reaffirms the breadth of the High Court’s remedial powers under PAJA and the Constitution, particularly that remittal for reconsideration is a natural and often essential consequence of setting aside administrative action. It underscores that courts are not confined to the precise wording of the notice of motion when fashioning just and equitable relief. The case also illustrates the strict threshold for leave to appeal and the court’s willingness to grant punitive costs where litigants abuse court processes or make unjustified attacks on judicial integrity.