Khoza and Another v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans (205731/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1214 (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 1214 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Khoza and Another v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans (205731/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1214 (14 November 2025) Khoza and Another v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans (205731/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1214 (14 November 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_1214.html sino date 14 November 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO:  205731/2025 (1)      REPORTABLE: YES /NO (2)      OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES /NO (3)      REVISED. DATE 14/11/2025 SIGNATURE In the matter between: THABO GORDON KHOZA First Applicant 101 SANDF MEMBERS KINSHASHA DEPLOYEES Second Applicant and THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS Respondent JUDGMENT LABUSCHAGNE J [1]        The applicants brought an urgent application to interdict the respondent from deducting expenses from their salaries during November 2025.  The applicants were deployed to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and, upon arrival in the DRC, found that accommodation had not been arranged.  The respondent then arranged accommodation in a hotel for the applicants.  They continued receiving a daily subsistence allowance, which included a breakfast allowance, whilst it was established later that the hotel was providing a rate inclusive of all meals. [2]          The applicants approached court after hearing informally on 27 October 2025, shortly after their return from the DRC, that the deductions from their salaries would take place during November. [3]         Attempts by the applicants to get engage with and get clarity from the Minister were unsuccessful. [4]        The first applicant is the only party who has an affidavit in support of his application.  The remaining 101 SANDF members did not depose to affidavits.  Their names appear on an attendance list, and it is apparent that they support the first applicant’s application. However, they are not formally before court as parties as they have not been properly cited and none of them has filed an affidavit confirming participation as applicants in the proceedings. [5]          Prior to their return, a general in the SANDF notified those that were deployed that corrective measures would take place upon their return in terms of an existing policy to recover duplicate expenditures. [6]         The Minister contends that the application is not urgent.  Reference is made to a communiqué dated 04 August 2025, where the employees were notified  of the need to recoup duplicated expenses for breakfasts.  However, the communiqué expressly stated that an investigation would first take place and after the investigation is completed, all members will be fully informed.  The Minister contends that this investigation has not even started and may take months.  He further denied that there would be any deductions during November 2025. [7]           It is apparent that the applicants first wanted an interdict restraining the deductions before negotiations with the Minister on the deductions.  This is improper as there is a grievance procedure available to SANDF members who feel aggrieved by decisions affecting them.  No grievance was laid and therefore an internal remedy was not pursued. An alternative remedy is fatal to interdictory relief. That route is still open to the applicants. [8]         The matter is accordingly not urgent.  However, the duplication of expenses appears to be because of an administrative error on the part of the Minister’s officials.  When the applicants made enquiries about this, they were met with silence. This informs the costs order below. [9]         The failure to communicate clearly with members on deductions from their salaries caused by administrative bungling is a matter on the SANDF and the Minister were required to engage meaningfully.  The failure to do so, particularly after the applicants’ return from their deployment, is regrettable. [10]         In the premises the following order is made: 1.          The matter is struck from the roll for lack of urgency. 2.          No order as to costs LABUSCHAGNE J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT APPEARANCES: COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT       : ADV MOAFRIKA WA MAILA INSTRUCTED BY                       : MORERO & MOEKETSI INC COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT  : ADV MASUTHA INSTRUCTED BY                       : STATE ATTORNEY PRETORIA sino noindex make_database footer start