Peters v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others

The applicant, Elizabeth Dipuo Peters, is a member of parliament and Deputy Minister of Small Business Development. In her previous capacity as Minister of Transport, she was the executive authority responsible for PRASA. #UniteBehind lodged a complaint against her with the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members' Interests ('the Committee') on 12 September 2022, alleging: (1) neglect in failing to appoint a permanent Group CEO for PRASA, resulting in R1,767,000 of fruitless expenditure; (2) irrational, unreasonable, and unlawful dismissal of the PRASA board chaired by Popo Molefe after the board uncovered R14 billion of irregular expenditure; (3) misuse of PRASA buses for ANC events without payment; (4) failure to investigate an allegation that R79 billion of PRASA funds was paid to Swifambo for distribution to the ANC; and (5) influencing procurement processes. The Committee deliberated on the complaint on 17 April 2023 and found the applicant breached the Code of Ethical Conduct in three respects: failure to appoint a CEO (breach of clauses 10.1.1.3, 4.1.3 and 4.1.4), irrational dismissal of the PRASA board (breach of clauses 10.1.1.3, 4.1.3, 4.1.4 and 4.1.5), and misuse of PRASA assets (breach of clauses 10.1.1.3 and 4.1.4). The Committee recommended that the applicant be suspended for one term of the Parliamentary program. On 28 November 2023, the National Assembly adopted the Committee's report and imposed the sanction for the first term of the 2024 Parliamentary session (commencing 30 January 2024 and ending 28 March 2024). The applicant was notified on 6 December 2023. Although her application papers were ready by 17 December 2023, she only instituted proceedings on 10 January 2024 seeking an interim interdict pending review.

• Whether the application warranted an urgent hearing under Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
• Whether the applicant's delay in instituting proceedings was self-created and whether it should result in the application being struck from the roll or dismissed.
• Whether granting an interim interdict suspending the implementation of the sanction would render the sanction nugatory and the subsequent review moot.
• Whether the court could grant interim relief that would effectively set aside a sanction imposed by the National Assembly exercising its constitutional oversight function, without being seized with the review application.
• Whether the separation of powers doctrine precluded granting the interim relief sought.

The application was dismissed. The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the first to fourth and sixth to eighth respondents, such costs to include the costs of two counsel where so employed, on a party and party scale.

An applicant who seeks an interim interdict pending a review of a time-bound sanction imposed by another branch of government must establish urgency and cannot create their own urgency through delay. Furthermore, a court will not grant an interim interdict that has the effect of rendering the sanction nugatory and rendering the subsequent review moot, particularly where the High Court lacks jurisdiction to hear moot cases, as this would undermine the constitutionally mandated oversight powers of another branch of government in violation of separation of powers principles.

The court commented that the informal exchange of papers at the earliest possible opportunity in urgent proceedings of this nature, where the papers are voluminous and where issues of some degree of complexity are raised, is not uncommon in practice and is to be encouraged. The court noted that the proper course of action would have been for the applicant to approach the court on an urgent basis to review and set aside the decisions she sought to review in Part B.

This case is significant for its elucidation of the intersection between civil procedure (urgency doctrine), separation of powers, and parliamentary oversight functions. It confirms that a litigant cannot create their own urgency through delay and then seek to benefit from that urgency. It also affirms that courts will not grant interim interdicts that effectively undermine sanctions imposed by Parliament exercising its constitutional oversight powers, where the court is not seized with the review. The case highlights the jurisdictional limits of the High Court in mootness doctrine compared to the Supreme Court of Appeal and Constitutional Court.