On the day sport, arts and culture minister Gayton McKenzie presented his R6.3bn budget in parliament, the sheriff was at the department’s head office in Pretoria to remove equipment and vehicles over an unpaid R12m court order.
The department had to argue urgently before judge Cornelius van der Westhuizen on Tuesday to stop the sheriff from clearing the office.
The writ of execution emanates from a court case in which former IT contractor Anton Keyter won against the department over unlawful termination of a contract.
Keyter’s contract as a consultant was terminated in December 2014. His contract with the department was supposed to end in 2017.
The high court in February found the department acted unlawfully when it terminated Keyter’s contract on the basis that his appointment “was unlawful and irregular as the competitive bidding process was not followed”.
The department initially owed Keyter R6.4m, but with interest over 10 years the court ordered payment of R12.4m.
The department did not file for leave to appeal for about four months. The court rules stipulate leave to appeal notices should be filed 15 days after the court order and application for hearing should be done within three months.
The state filed for leave to appeal in June as the sheriff proceeded with the attachment of assets.
The department’s representative, advocate Chris Georgiades, struggled to explain to the court the reasons for the delay.
He told the court the department’s legal adviser passed away in April and that had affected the legal desk. He said an acting official heading the legal office became aware of the court order in May.
The judge asked Georgiades why the state had not initiated an appeal before April.
“The applicants [sports department] are trying to hide behind the fact that the director, or whatever the position was, in legal services passed away. The state attorney could have said, ‘This [judgment] is wrong. The judge got it all wrong’,” said Van der Westhuizen.
Georgiades argued the R12m payment was a result of inflated interest and the state was always of the view that it was unjust despite the delayed appeal.
He said he could not “speak for the dead” to detail the nitty-gritty of what happened.
He pleaded for the court’s intervention, saying Keyter’s enforcement of the court order pending an urgent application was “malicious” and the department would suffer.
Georgiades said that “R12m is a substantial sum”.
“They are in the process now, to my surprise, to remove removals. We ask for an order to stay the execution.”
Keyter’s legal team was putting the state under pressure to pay while “it is clear” from the judgment there were merits for leave to appeal, he said.
The disgruntled former contractor’s lawyer, Leon Van Gass, argued that the department “did absolutely nothing” despite several letters of demand and warnings sent to it from February.
“The department ignored every letter, and they did not comply with the court order. This case is from 2015; the department has dragged out this trial for 10 years.
“My learned friend made mention that the interest seems excessive. The interest has been running for 10 years, there is nothing strange about that,” said Van Gass.
He said a warning was sent to the department that the sheriff would proceed with removing assets on July 15 despite the filing for appeal in June. This triggered the urgent application.
Van Gass said the interest should serve as a warning to the applicants not to drag the matter out longer because it would increase by R13,000/day.
“They waited until the last minute to bring this application. My client has already waited 10 years since the summons was issued. Justice must be served and seen to be served.”
The judge granted the order in the department’s favour on condition it paid the R12m to the trust account of the state attorney by July 23. The money will be kept in the trust account pending the appeal.
The judge was of the view it was a fair compromise, lamenting the court could not issue an interdict that would make it look like it “condones” the breaking of court rules by the department.
The court also ordered the department to take steps to ensure the leave-to-appeal application was heard within a month.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.