Gauteng Gambling Board Median Salary by Job
Its steadfast approach that the matter should be kept in abeyance pending the investigation by the Public Protector is rejected. That pending the determination of the review and declaratory orders sought in Part B of this Application, the following interim relief is granted: On their version, they have not been able to do so because they rely on the relocation as the basis to resist to move to Johannesburg.
The court is not seized with determining the truth of the allegations raised by concerned members of the staff of the Board, which the Public Protector needs to investigate which inter alia include whether the relocation will offend fiscal discipline required by Public Finance Management Act. Counsel further submitted that such a decision was taken rationally, lawfully and validly. He argued that it is undesirable and unconstitutional to require the constitutional institutions i.
New Board Sets to Work on Pressing Issues
He submitted quiet persuasively that it would seem that the applicants merely want to remain in office pending the investigation by the Public Protector and urged me to reject the applicants case. In my view, the EXCO after conducting a proper business study, decided that all agencies must relocate to Johannesburg.
Please be advised that the decision by the court will not affect other aspects of the allegations, which are still under my investigation. This is unconscionable and against the spirit of the Constitution. This decision until set aside by a court in proceedings for judicial review it exist in fact and has legal consequences that cannot be over looked.
Interdicting the Respondent from appointing an administrator pending the finalization of the review application that was launched in this Court on 18 January The second applicant is the chairperson of the Board. In terms of section 34 of the Constitution, everyone has a right to have a dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing before a court of law or where appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or forum.
I do not deem it appropriate to stop court proceedings and the matter before court must proceed as scheduled. In essence, so the argument goes, the issues before the Public Protector will remain unaffected by the court ruling.
In the interim some of the concerned members of staff of the first applicant reported the issue to the Public Protector for investigation to determine whether relocation of the Board does not amount to fruitless and wasteful expenditure and other alleged procedural irregularities. Quite clearly, the Public Protector was mindful of her constitutional imperatives, as a chapter nine institution, that she cannot encroach upon the issues before the court.
Applicants submitted that since the instruction by the respondent was clearly in conflict with section 18 of the Act, the Board was in the circumstances justified in refusing to relocate to Johannesburg. On behalf of the applicants, it was submitted that notwithstanding that short period, the applicant complied with the request when it advised the respondent that its reasons would be contained or found in the contemplated urgent application.
I need salary information for…
At the hearing of this matter, the issue relating to African Romance was no longer viable as it African Romance had decided not to take up the premises of the applicant. I am not satisfied that the requirements of the temporary and final interdict have been satisfied by the applicants.
In the present matter, the explanation by the respondent that it was unaware of the application when it took the decision to terminate the membership of the respondent cannot be said to be irrational or unreasonable. This was after the Board had failed to furnish reasons to the respondent why its membership of the Board should not be terminated.
It also resisted the relocation on the basis that the suggestion by the Respondent to lease the premises to an entity called African Romance would also flout the treasury regulations because no approval had been obtained. Consequently the decision to relocate all the agencies was also based on an informed decision. Adv Soni Sc instructed by: An organ of state involved in an intergovernmental dispute must make every reasonable effort to settle gauteng gambling board members dispute by means of mechanisms and procedures provided for that purpose, and must exhaust all other remedies before it approaches a court to resolve the dispute.
As the issue of the relocation is currently being investigated by the Public Protector, there is in my view no legitimate basis why the applicants should resist relocation on that basis.
This was in accordance with the constitutional mandate to govern the province in much more efficient way to cater for proper service delivery. It would appear that its reason to remain in Bramley is because, on its version, the relocation would amount to fruitless expenditure.
Previous Board Terminated by a High Court Ruling
All agencies reporting to the Department of Economic Development were instructed to move to Main Street, Johannesburg. On these basis I would dismiss the application I now turn to deal with the first and second notice of motion. The Public Protector indicated by letter dated 23 March that the proceedings must continue. However towards the end of the year, the Board which was operating in Bramley was instructed to align itself with the decision to join other agencies.
And if corroboration is required gauteng gambling board members he or she can be sure then corroboration must necessarily be found. I am fortified in my view that there is no authority in law that says that a member is entitled to disobey an instruction on the basis that it would result in fruitless or wasteful expenditure.
The Public Protector in her letter dated 23 March correctly did not arrogate to herself or her office such powers. Gauteng gambling board members further submitted that it is unacceptable for the respondent to say that the application, which was properly served by the applicants attorneys, was not brought to her attention, when a decision to terminate the members of the Board was taken.
The Board which was operating at Bramley was also instructed to adhere to the EXCO decision but failed or ignored this instruction. That Sefako Phanuel Prince Mafojane is admitted as the Second Applicant to the proceedings brought under the same Case Number by First Applicant on 18 January and that he be joined as a party to those proceedings. It was argued that given the fact that the Board had recently moved to the present building at the cost of R million, for the respondent to now instruct it to relocate to Johannesburg, amounts to fruitless and wasteful expenditure and not in accordance with the section 18 of the Act and thus clearly in conflict with the constitution, other treasury regulations and this conduct is irrational.
At that time the Board which is one of the agencies was not part of that decision. The matter which the court is seized with, is the lawfulness or otherwise of respondent conduct to terminate the membership of the members of the Board. This, according to the applicants, is because it was conceded by the respondent that instructing the Board to lease the premises to African Romance was against Treasury Regulations.