Suspended Road Accident Fund (RAF) chief executive Collins Letsoalo’s suspension will remain in place, after the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, has turned down his application to immediately be reinstated as CEO.
In a scathing judgment released late on Thursday, Judge Nasious Moshoanathe said Letsoalo’s application was vexatious. He found Letsoalo’s suspension effected by the RAF Board earlier this month is lawful, rational and reasonable.
“There is no factual or legal basis to declare the suspension to be unlawful, irrational and unreasonable. Mr Letsoalo has failed to establish a prima facie right, even one open to any doubt. He failed to demonstrate any apprehension of irreparable harm. Thus, he is not entitled to an interdictory relief of any nature, be it interim or final,” the judge said.
Accordingly, the application, although heard as one of urgency, falls to be dismissed, he added, slapping Letsoalo with the legal costs.
Letsoalo launched his “life and death” high court application, demanding reinstatement and stopping the advertising of his position. Letsoalo wanted an order declaring that the RAF Board’s decision to suspend him earlier this month to be set aside as unlawful, irrational, and unreasonable.
Letsoalo was suspended as CEO on June 3 based on the accusation that he refused to attend a SCOPA regarding the fund’s problems.
Judge Moshoanathe said Letsoalo dismally failed to establish prima facie facts establishing a right in terms of substantive law.
“Even if this court were to assume, which assumption it is not making, that a prima facie right open to some doubt has been established, there is no evidence that such a right to be re-appointed is facing imminent irreparable harm.”
The judge added: “In a rather rumour-mongering style, Mr Letsoalo testified that there is already pressure on the Board from ‘some quarters’ to advertise the position (for the next CEO of the RAF).”
Letsoalo’s contract as CEO is due to lapse in August, but according to him, the board had already decided to reappoint him. Thus, he argued, it was vital that his suspension be lifted.
His legal team asked for the court to, in the event of Letsoalo not succeeding in his application, award a cost order in terms of the Biowatch principle. This dictates that in public interest litigation, the losing party must not pay the legal costs, as they are enforcing their constitutional rights.
In slapping Letsoalo with the legal costs, the judge said: “The present litigation is aimed at protecting pecuniary interests as opposed to protecting a constitutional right. This Court takes a view that the present application is frivolous and vexatious. Mr Letsoalo, for very selfish reasons, it seems, disavowed adequate and substantial remedies available to him in terms of the LRA (Labour Relations Act).”
The judge, adding on this topic, said: “An orange and a grapefruit bear similar resemblance. Both are yellow outside and are fruits. However, a grapefruit is not as sweet as an orange. In this case, Mr Letsoalo picked a grapefruit being fully conscious that he is picking up a grapefruit as opposed to an orange. Therefore, he has no reason to complain about the bitterness in the mouth.”
The judge added that “now that the grapefruit is bitter in the mouth, it does not avail to Mr Letsoalo to take a chameleon approach and want to name the grapefruit an orange for sweetness convenience”.
