The President of the Republic of South Africa v Democratic Alliance and Others

Following a cabinet reshuffle announced on 31 March 2017 by then President Jacob Zuma, Pravin Gordhan (Minister of Finance) and Mcebisi Jonas (Deputy Minister) were removed and replaced by Malusi Gigaba and Sfiso Buthelezi. The Democratic Alliance launched a review application in the High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the reshuffle and, under Uniform Rule 53, sought disclosure of the record of the President’s decision, including an alleged intelligence report. The President failed to provide the record, leading to an urgent interlocutory application compelling disclosure. The High Court ordered the President to furnish the record, holding that Rule 53 applied to executive decisions. The President appealed this interlocutory order. Before the appeal was heard, President Zuma resigned, a new cabinet reshuffle occurred under President Ramaphosa, and the review application was withdrawn by agreement between the parties.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

The case reaffirms the doctrine of mootness in South African appellate practice and the application of section 16(2)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act. It underscores judicial restraint and the principle that courts should not decide academic issues or give advisory opinions, particularly in politically sensitive matters involving executive power. The judgment also clarifies that uncertainty regarding procedural rules should ordinarily be addressed by the Rules Board rather than through moot litigation.