MEC for Economic Development, Gauteng and Another v Sibongile Vilakazi and Others

The respondents were appointed in October 2021 as members of the board of directors of the Gauteng Growth and Development Agency (GGDA) for a three‑year term. Following a change in the Member of the Executive Council (MEC) for Economic Development, disagreements arose between the MEC and the board concerning the recruitment and appointment of a Group Chief Executive Officer (GCEO). The board supported the appointment of an acting GCEO following a recruitment process, while the MEC asserted her statutory authority to restart the process and preferred a different candidate. Relations deteriorated, with exchanges concerning statutory powers, governance, and dispute‑resolution mechanisms. On 24 March 2023, the MEC terminated the respondents’ directorships, citing a breakdown in trust and functionality. The respondents launched review proceedings (Part B) and sought interim relief (Part A) suspending the MEC’s decision and reinstating them pending the review. The Gauteng High Court granted the interim relief and made a punitive costs order against the MEC. The MEC and the Agency appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).

The appeal was upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel. The High Court order was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the application for interim relief, with costs to follow the result of the relief sought in Part B of the notice of motion.

The judgment clarifies the appealability of so‑called interim orders that have final and substantive effects, reaffirming the interests‑of‑justice approach beyond the rigid Zweni criteria. It underscores the strict distinction between interim and final relief, cautioning courts against making determinative findings at the interim stage. The case is significant for public governance disputes, reinforcing limits on judicial intervention in executive decisions pending review.