Public Protector Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane. Picture: Oupa Mokoena/African News Agency (ANA)
Public Protector Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane. Picture: Oupa Mokoena/African News Agency (ANA)

Mkhwebane loses bid to appeal judgment on Ivan Pillay’s early retirement

By Loyiso Sidimba Time of article published Apr 7, 2021

Share this article:

Johannesburg - Public Enterprises Minister Pravin Gordhan, ex-acting SA Revenue Service (Sars) commissioner Ivan Pillay and Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane have all lost their bid to overturn the North Gauteng High Court ruling on Pillay’s early retirement.

A full bench of the high court – Judges Elizabeth Kubushi, Mpostoli Twala and Norman Davis – dismissed Mkhwebane’s appeal as well as Gordhan and Pillay’s cross appeal.

”We are, therefore, of the view that there are no reasonable prospects of success of the appeal. Put differently, we hold the view that there is no prospect that another court may come to a different conclusion in this case. Therefore, the applications for leave to appeal and cross-appeal the judgment fall to be dismissed,” the judges found.

In December, Judges Kubushi, Twala and Davis reviewed and set aside Mkhwebane’s report into Gordhan’s approval of Pillay’s early retirement and subsequent retention by Sars.

The high court declared unlawful and invalid Mkhwebane's decision to exercise jurisdiction over the complaint in terms of the Public Protector Act and reviewed and set aside.

Mkhwebane’s report, findings and remedial action was also declared unlawful and invalid and reviewed and set it aside.

Mkhwebane succeeded in having parts of Gordhan’s founding affidavit that were insulting, combative, rude, condescending, scandalous, vexatious and/or irrelevant struck out by the high court.

Gordhan and Pillay’s cross appeal and Mkhwebane’s appeal were dismissed with costs.

Their appeal and cross appeal were against parts of the judgments and orders that were not favourable to them, according to the judges.

The judges said leave to appeal is only granted where the appeal has reasonable prospects of success or when there are compelling reasons for it to be heard.

[email protected]

Political Bureau

Share this article: