Registered users can save articles to their personal articles list. Login here or sign up here

Judge rules in favour of Oppenheimers versus Gigaba

Calls the minister’s denial ‘uncreditworthy’.

In a week that saw financial markets take a sharp view on the creditworthiness of the country following finance minister Malusi Gigaba’s maiden budget policy statement, it is hard to misplace the irony of a judge in the North Gauteng High Court calling his version of events “uncreditworthy”.

But this was exactly what unfolded last week, as Judge Sulet Potterill on Friday delivered her judgment in the highly publicised case between the Oppenheimers’ Fireblade Aviation and Gigaba in his capacity as the Minister of Home Affairs.

The judgment related to an application made by Fireblade, to have an ad hoc international customs and immigration service available at the corporate fixed base aviation operation that Fireblade has built at OR Tambo airport.

Essentially, Fireblade invested in a seven-star facility which, up until the judgment had been delivered, was used by travelling VVIP’s as a stop-over between domestic flights. Fireblade wanted to expand the use of the facility for guests arriving from international destinations and thus sought, over a period of five years and countless jumping-through-regulatory-and-administrative hoops, the blessing of government to have officials from the Border Control Operational Coordinating Committee (BCOCC) man the facility for the processing of international flights.

Airports Company South Africa (Acsa) supported the initiative because it enabled it to reorganise commercial business aviation at OR Tambo. There is a “dire need for these premium products at the largest airport in Africa and the lack of these facilities is definitely tarnishing our brand,” Acsa had said. The facility is built on land owned by Acsa and managed by Denel properties.

Approvals from various government departments and agencies were eventually given and this culminated in a meeting on January 28 2016 between the Department of Home Affairs, represented by Malusi Gigaba, and Fireblade Aviation, represented by chairman Nicky Oppenheimer. The minutes show that Malusi Gigaba had approved the facility for international arrivals and departures and that the approval letter would be released with a formal letter addressed to Fireblade.

The court was asked to rule on whether the reasons given by the minister to first suspend, and then rescind, his original decision were justified in the eyes of the law. Judge Potterill methodically struck out all of the excuses and reasons proffered by minister Gigaba on his about turn, variously calling the arguments and representations he put forward as ‘spurious’, ‘fundamentally flawed’, ‘laboured’, ‘meritless’, ‘bad in law’, ‘nonsensical and palpably untrue’, and ‘uncreditworthy’.

So, pretty damning? Yes.

Judge Pottrill also decried the manner in which representations made by Advocates Tulk and Ngcukaitobi had reverted to name-calling and insults. “I am urged not to allow a court of law to serve, in the words of the Constitutional Court, as a ‘free for all insult trading contest…’”

Judge Potterill found in favour of Fireblade Aviation. “The ministerial approval issued in terms of prayer 1 above is of force and effect, and may not be renounced or revoked by the first respondent [the Minister of Home Affairs] without due cause and may be implemented and relied on by the applicant.”

The judge ordered the respondents to pay the legal costs of Fireblade.

Gigaba has indicated that he may appeal the judgment. We wait to see.  

Oops! We could not locate your form.

COMMENTS   12

To comment, you must be registered and logged in.

LOGIN HERE

Don't have an account?
Sign up for FREE

I think this is a conspiracy. Delay so long on final approval that the rightful owner gives up hope and accepts a pittance for the project from a stooge. The project is given approval as soon as the sale is signed. Thank you Firebrand for getting a legal precedent against this form of theft. I think the owners of the stalled alternative energy projects should take note.

If Gigupta lodges an appeal and fails, then the legal costs awarded should come from his own pocket and not paid for by the tax payers.

He changed his original decision so he could hand it to the Guptas who wanted it.

Go easy on Gigaba, for he merely does his master’s bidding.

Malusi Gigaba track record:
Began politics in the ANCYL, where he lived off the looted blessings of WMC Brett Kebble.
At Home Affairs, stuffed up tourism with his well-meant but ill-considered child visa regulation over-kill; did nothing to improve the processing of passports and ID books
At State Enterprises, handed over SOEs to Crooks and Friends of Crooks, those who “invested in the ZANC” and managed to bankrupt most.

Looks good in a suit, though.

Looks good in his fancy suit ?

Mmm……

So can a well groomed chimp

this comment does you no credt – i suggest you issue a retraction

So the judge finds Gigaba’s “arguments and representations he put forward as ‘spurious’, ‘fundamentally flawed’, ‘laboured’, ‘meritless’, ‘bad in law’, ‘nonsensical and palpably untrue’, and ‘uncreditworthy’”. That sounds like the behaviour of a vexatious litigant. It follows that the judge should have ordered Gigaba to pay the costs on a punitive scale (i.e. on an attorney and own client scale), at best OR that Gigaba personally pays the costs, at worst. Which one was it?

Load All 12 Comments
End of comments.

LATEST CURRENCIES  

USD / ZAR
GBP / ZAR
EUR / ZAR

Podcasts

GO TO SHOP CART

Follow us:

Search Articles:Advanced Search
Click a Company:
server: 172.17.0.2