Question NW622 to the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy

ENTITY

what (a) is the (i) breakdown of all legal matters against the various entities of his department

(a)(ii) cost to the taxpayer in each case

(b) are the reasons that his department has not, to date, used its own internal processes against those individuals who offset the specified cases, such that they are personally liable for the specified legal costs

NECSA

On or about 12 August 2019, Mr Vusi Malebana, erstwhile Necsa Chief Legal Advisor filed an urgent application seeking a declaratory and interdicting order setting aside his suspension and stopping the disciplinary proceeding against him. The Labour Court ruled that the suspension of Mr. Malebana by the South Africa Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa) was declared to be unlawful and constitutes an occupational detriment.

Necsa was ordered to pay the costs of Mr. Malebana in pursuing the urgent application, which costs were to include the costs of two (2) counsel. The bill of costs as per the Taxing Master certificate were R352 486.14 which Necsa honoured in full in January 2021.

Following the court interdict, Mr. Malebana was subjected to a disciplinary hearing and eventually dismissed. He took the matter to the CCMA whereby the CCMA ordered that his dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair and awarded six months compensation amounting to R679 444.86.

Mr Malebana subsequently served Necsa with a Notice of Motion together with the founding affidavit on 12 December 2020 in essence outlining his intentions to review the arbitration award issued by CCMA on 26 October 2020. 

CGS

The Council for Geoscience has no pending legal matters emanating from the scenario outlined in the question.

N/A

N/A

MINTEK

Mintek does not have any litigation matters that were started by persons who are no longer at the company. The only legal matters currently active relates to labour issues such as unfair dismissal and unfair labour practice.

N/A

N/A

NNR

No outstanding litigation against NNR

N/A

N/A

NRWDI

The National Radioactive Waste Disposal Institute (NRWDI) is not involve in any litigation matters and therefore the questions are not applicable to NRWDI.

N/A

N/A

SDT

The SDT has no litigation matters at present. No such matters were dealt with in the past. Consequently, the entity has incurred no costs in this regard.

N/A

N/A

SADPMR

The SADPMR has no former or current employees who were involved in any litigations of which the Regulator was responsible for paying their legal costs.

N/A

N/A

SANEDI

SANEDI is currently opposing one labour relation matter

R253,998.25

Matter is still pending

ENTITY

what (a) is the (i) breakdown of all legal matters against the various entities of his department

(a)(ii) cost to the taxpayer in each case

(b) are the reasons that his department has not, to date, used its own internal processes against those individuals who offset the specified cases, such that they are personally liable for the specified legal costs

CEF (SOC) Ltd

CEF SOC Ltd and SFF jointly handled the stock rotation litigation matter

R11, 922, 752.15.

After the A&O Report, Application was made for a declaratory order declaring that the sale of strategic stock was invalid.

SFF

Stock Rotation already reported as stated above.

Krone is suing SFF for payment, which they allege, is due in terms of the contract. Krone was required to install a metering system, which was aimed at improving accuracy levels of measuring of oil volumes.

In the recovery of proceeds for the sale of diesel to Line Petroleum, a default judgment was granted in favour of SFF,

R4 500 685.00

R 43, 400.43

SFF is withholding payment on the grounds of non-performance under the contract.

A legal opinion is being sought because Line Petroleum does not have attachable assets in South Africa.

iGas

No litigation to report on.

N/A

N/A

PetroSA

PetroSA is claiming damages from Odjfjell for the pipeline damages.

PetroSA has instituted liquidation proceedings against Two Oceans for failing to honour payments for product sold

PetroSA has obtained judgment against Fantastic View and a writ of execution has been issued

R 11,462, 280.93

R 1,457,266.26

R 738,755.57

Judgment is pending

AEMFC

The supplier being Innovent was found to have misrepresented AEMFC on registration with the Financial Service Board.

AEMFC concluded a settlement agreement with NUM in 2017 at the CCMA which was made an Arbitration award and amongst the item agreed upon was that AEMFC will pay the 13th cheque each December. In 2019 there was another agreement which states that it supersedes all the previous agreements and a new bonus scheme which was performance bonus was introduced. Bargaining employees in 2019 as per the new agreement received 50% of their CTC as performance bonus and the 13th Cheque was not paid. NUM has now obtained an Arbitration award against AEMFC demanding the 13th Cheque for December 2019. Persuant to the Arbitration award, NUM applied for enforcement order of R2.9M which was granted and AEMFC property was attached by the sheriff. AEMFC has applied to the Labour Court to stay the enforcement order pending the rescission of the of the Arbitration award. The argument by AEMFC is that, the 2017 agreement was superseded by the 2019 agreement and further that the 13th Cheque must be from the employee’s salary and not at employers costs.

An AEMFC former Senior Employee concluded a collecting Agreement with NUM in terms of which AEMFC will pay the risk allowance to employees who worked during the lockdown. In terms of the AEMFC LOA the collective agreement must be recommended by EXCO to the board for approval. The submission to the board by the former employed did not disclose that a collective agreement is already signed but created the impression that AEMFC must make a once off payment of R2.6 million for 5 weeks lockdown. AEMFC made a once off payment and the union lodge a grievance with the CCMA to enforcement the collecting agreement signed with the former employee. AEMFC disputed the validity of the collective agreement since it was not approved by EXCO and board and an urgent court application was filed to interdict CCMA to proceed with the matter pending review of the decision by AEMFC former employee to sign a collective agreement without authority.

R 241 016.43

R 192, 510.00

R 283,496. 62

The contract was classified as Irregular expenditure by National Treasury.

No.

1. Type of Litigation Matter

1. Breakdown of Legal Matters

1. Related Costs

1. Reasons for not using own internal processes

1.

Judicial review

ESKOM- Case arises from the decision of the Energy Regulator approving the MYPD3 RCA5 and Eskom is unhappy with the outcome. Eskom has taken the decision on judicial review.

R1 750 000.00

Only lawyers in the practising roll can appear in court. Despite NERSA legal advisors are all admitted attorneys/advocates, they cannot appear in court.

2.

Judicial review

AFGRI/PHILAFRICA- The judicial review case arises from the decision of the Energy Regulator not to amend or revoke the distribution licence of Maluti a Phofung Local Municipality licence.

2 900 000.00

Only lawyers in the practising roll can appear in court. Despite NERSA legal advisors are all admitted attorneys/advocates, they cannot appear in court.

3.

Judicial review

Drakenstein Local Municipality. The judicial review arises from the decision of the Energy Regulator not to approve some of the tariffs of the municipality during 2019/20 because of the impact that it would have had on the customers.

R2 200 000.00

Only lawyers in the practising roll can appear in court. Despite NERSA legal advisors are all admitted attorneys/advocates, they cannot appear in court.

4.

Judicial review/ Implementation of order pending appeal/ leave to appeal

Eskom- The appeal follows the judgement of the Pretoria High Court to substitute the decision of the Energy Regulator on the Eskom MYPD4 Year 3. This case has already had three judgements (review judgement, leave to appeal judgement and implementation of review judgement pending appeal judgement)

R7 400 000.00

Only lawyers in the practising roll can appear in court. Despite NERSA legal advisors are all admitted attorneys/advocates, they cannot appear in court.

5.

Judicial review

Sunrise- the matter arises from the judicial review brought by Sunrise against what they call improper formulation and reading of the Petroleum Pipelines Operating licence issued by NERSA to Avedia

R2 200 000.00

Only lawyers in the practising roll can appear in court. Despite NERSA legal advisors are all admitted attorneys/advocates, they cannot appear in court.

what (a) is the (i) breakdown of all legal matters against the various entities of his department

(a)(ii) cost to the taxpayer in each case

(b) are the reasons that his department has not, to date, used its own internal processes against those individuals who offset the specified cases, such that they are personally liable for the specified legal costs

Investigation into allegations of financial misconduct

1 006 475,00

The matter is not finalised

Dispute at the Labour Court between employer an employee

233 770,00

Recovery if any will be based on outcome of the labour court

Challenging the recruitment process of the HR head at the Labour Court

45 007,55

Recovery if any will be based on outcome of the labour court

Termination of the Contract and recovery due to non performance

456 046,00

The matter is not finalised

Dispute at the Labour Court between employer an employee

301 357,44

Recovery if any will be based on outcome of the labour court

Dispute at the Labour Court between employer an employee

86 766,63

Settlement paid by MHSC

Dispute over employment Contract

153 060,00

Assessment still to be done pending the outcome of disciplinary hearing- employee on suspension