Fisher v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others (A126/2024; 48823/2020) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1205 (14 November 2025)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPPHC 1205 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Fisher v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others (A126/2024; 48823/2020) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1205 (14 November 2025) Fisher v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others (A126/2024; 48823/2020) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1205 (14 November 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_1205.html sino date 14 November 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA Case No: A126/2024 Court a quo:   48823/2020 (1)      REPORTABLE: NO (2)      OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3)      REVISED. (4)      Date: 14 November 2025 Signature: In the matter between: EBRAHIM FISHER Appellant And THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS First Respondent THE SECRETARY FOR DEFENCE Second Respondent THE CHIEF OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL DEFENCE FORCE Third Respondent THE CHIEF OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN NAVY Fourth Respondent THE CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES Fifth Respondent THE MILITARY OMBUD Sixth Respondent Coram: Khumalo J, et Nyathi & Millar JJ Heard on: 20 March 2025 Delivered: 14 November 2025 – This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ representatives by email, by being uploaded to the CaseLines system of the GD and by release to SAFLII. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 14H00 on 14 November 2025. JUDGMENT NYATHI J (KHUMALO et MILLAR JJ CONCURRING) INTRODUCTION [1]          This is an appeal against the judgment of the Honourable Acting Justice M Baloyi-Mbembele delivered on 20 July 2023, in which the appellant’s application for review was dismissed with costs. [2]         The appellant, Mr Ebrahim Fisher, sought to challenge the decision of the Military Ombud, which upheld the refusal by the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) to award him a Core Service System (CSS) contract following the expiry of his Military Skills Development System (MSDS) contract. [3]         The relief sought included: [3.1]     The review and setting aside of the Military Ombud’s findings; [3.2]     An order directing the respondents to award the appellant a CSS contract and reinstate him in the SANDF from 1 February 2015; [3.3]     Payment of all associated allowances and benefits from that date; [3.4]     Costs of the application. BACKGROUND [4]         The appellant joined the SANDF on a two-year MSDS contract commencing 9 February 2013 and ending 31 January 2015. [5]         During his service, he was implicated in a disciplinary matter involving the alleged use of dagga, resulting in a pending charge under section 46 of the Military Discipline Code. [6]         His application for a CSS contract was considered by the Fleet Human Resources Division CSS Contract Allocation Board on 15 October 2014. He was not recommended due to the pending disciplinary charge. [7]          The appellant was not afforded an opportunity to make representations prior to the board’s decision. He was informed in December 2014 that he would not be awarded a CSS contract. [8]          His military court case concluded on 1 July 2016 with an acquittal. Subsequent internal recommendations suggested he be considered for a CSS contract, but no contract was awarded. [9]           The appellant pursued internal grievance procedures and ultimately lodged a complaint with the Military Ombud, who found the decision not to award the contract was fair and in accordance with SANDF policy. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION [10]             The central issues for determination are: [10.1]       Whether the appellant had a legitimate expectation to be awarded a CSS contract; [10.2]       Whether the Military Ombud’s decision is reviewable under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (“PAJA”); [10.3]       Whether the respondents acted procedurally and substantively fairly in declining to award the CSS contract. LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION [11] The doctrine of legitimate expectation, as established in Administrator, Transvaal v Traub [1] , requires that an expectation must be reasonable, based on clear and unambiguous representations, and that the affected party must be afforded procedural fairness. [12]       The appellant’s reliance on internal communications not addressed to him, and on general provisions of Admin Instruction 24/14, does not meet the threshold for a legitimate expectation. [13]         The MSDS contract does not create an automatic entitlement to a CSS contract. The appellant’s disciplinary status at the time of consideration was a relevant factor under the applicable policy. [14]       The absence of a recommendation from his commanding officer further undermines any claim of entitlement. REVIEW OF THE MILITARY OMBUD’S DECISION [15]        The Military Ombud was established under the Military Ombud Act 4 of 2012 (“the Act”). [16]        Section 13 of the Act permits review of the Ombud’s decisions by the High Court within 180 days. [17]        The Ombud’s role is investigative, not appellate. The appellant was afforded an opportunity to comment on the preliminary report but failed to do so. [18]       In Mokheseng v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others (11458/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 919 (23 November 2022) in para 44, the court found that the decision of the Military Ombud does amount to administrative action as contemplated by PAJA and consequently that the applicant should have proceeded in terms of PAJA. [19]             In the case of Temane v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and others [2019] JOL 45171 (GP) the findings and recommendations by the Military Ombud were reviewed and set aside in terms of PAJA. [20]         In the case Edgar Davids v The Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others and Zilta Miles v The Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others (854/2023) [2024] ZASCA 171 (12 December 2024) para 8, the court held that if the Ombud dismisses the complaint, such a decision may be reviewed by the high court in terms of section 13, but short of a successful review, the decision is final and binding. [21]         The Ombud’s findings were based on policy compliance and financial constraints, and no procedural irregularity or irrationality has been demonstrated. [22]       The decision is therefore not reviewable under PAJA, quite interestingly, the period within which an aggrieved party should take his matter on review in section 13 of the Act, mirrors that stipulated in PAJA. CONCLUSION [23]        The appellant has failed to establish a legitimate expectation or any procedural unfairness in the respondents’ conduct. [24]       The Military Ombud’s decision was lawful, rational, and procedurally fair. [25]        The appeal must accordingly fail. [26]       It is trite that costs are a matter for the exercise of judicial discretion. On consideration of the matter as a whole, given the particular circumstances, there will be no order for costs. ORDER [27]        In the circumstances, I propose the following order: [27.1]       The appeal is dismissed. [27.2]       There is no order as to costs. JS NYATHI JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA I AGREE AND IT IS SO ORDERED NV KHUMALO JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA I AGREE, A MILLAR JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA HEARD ON:                                                   25 MARCH 2025 JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON:                         14 NOVEMBER 2025 COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: ADV. GL VAN DER WESTHUIZEN INSTRUCTED BY: GRIESEL BREYTENBACH ATTORNEYS COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS (FIRST TO FIFTH): ADV. P MANAGA ADV. M MAKHUBELE INSTRUCTED BY: STATE ATTORNEY, PRETORIA [1] [1989] ZASCA 90 ; 1989 (4) SA 731 (A). sino noindex make_database footer start