In a previous blog, we illustrated that an applicant needs to meet all the legal requirements for urgent interim relief before a court will grant such relief.  On 17 September 2024, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) handed down a judgment which reaffirmed this point.        

The matter arose from a dispute between the Gauteng MEC for Economic Development and the board members of a development agency over the appointment of the agency’s group CEO. The MEC terminated the directorships of the board members and dissolved the board after they refused to comply with her instructions to restart the recruitment process for the group CEO.    

The board members applied to the High Court for an interim interdict suspending the MEC’s decision and reinstating them as board members, pending the finalisation of a review application for the setting aside of the MEC’s decision. The High Court not only granted the interim interdict, but ordered punitive costs against the MEC, based on a finding that the MEC had acted maliciously and for ulterior motives.    

On appeal by the MEC, the SCA ruled that the High Court had impermissibly made final pronouncements on issues that properly fell for determination in the intimated review application, such as the rationality and motives of the MEC’s decision. The High Court also erred in granting the interim interdict, as the board members failed to meet the relevant legal requirements in that:    

• they could not establish a legal right to a fair procedure that required protection, because the MEC had given them adequate notice and opportunity to make representations before terminating their directorships;
• they could not show a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm, as their directorships were terminated due to the breakdown of their relationship with the MEC and not because of any alleged misconduct;
• the balance of convenience favoured the MEC, because the interim interdict interfered with her statutory powers to appoint the group CEO and new board members; and
• any remedy available to the board members for financial losses would not be affected by the time needed to finalise the intimated review application.  

The SCA accordingly set aside the order of the High Court and replaced it with an order dismissing the board members’ application for interim relief with costs.       

This judgment illustrates again that not every perceived wrong will give rise to a right to urgent interim relief. Many attempts to persuade the courts to intervene urgently fail. The basic legal principles need careful consideration before any urgent application is launched.   

The case is MEC for Economic Development, Gauteng and Another v Sibongile Vilakazi and Others (783/2023) [2024] ZASCA 126 (17 September 2024).