DISMISS SNAT COURT PAPERS - GOVT

MBABANE - Government wants the supplementary papers filed by SNAT challenging the gazette appointing TSC commissioners to be struck out.
If a case is ‘struck out’ it means the court has dismissed it without a full hearing of all of the evidence.

The court can ‘strike out’ the whole or part of a ‘statement of case’ (a document which each side produces, setting out the summary of their legal arguments).
In the matter in which the Swaziland National Association of Teachers (SNAT) is challenging the extension of the term of office of the Teaching Service Commission (TSC) Chairman Simanga and appointment of commissioners, Dumsile Sigwane and Nkosenhle Masuku, SNAT filed a supplementary affidavit.
In the supplementary affidavit, SNAT argued that the gazette, Legal Notice 159/2019, with an effective date of April 12, 2019, was allegedly unlawful and ought to be set aside.

SNAT has challenged the minister of Education and Training to immediately advise the King about the alleged Constitutional error in Mamba’s appointment as the chairman of the TSC so that the appointment would be withdrawn.

Government, which is represented by assistant Attorney General Mbuso Simelane, in response, told the court that SNAT’s submission was argumentative and conflicted with their submission in the founding affidavit. As a result, government wants SNAT’s supplementary papers to be struck out.

In the founding affidavit SNAT Secretary General Sikelela Dlamini said the association did not challenge the King as the appointing authority but how the Minister of Education and Training conducted the process of submitting the names of the commissioners to the appointing authority.

After SNAT supplemented its papers, government filed final heads of argument ‘in order to cover the fresh and conflicting arguments brought by the applicant (SNAT) relating to Legal Notice 159/2019 that was signed by His Majesty King Mswati III.’

The legal notice, according to government, is older in effect to the court application because it commenced operation on April 12, 2019 but SNAT’s papers were registered on May 22, 2019.

Prayer

“This makes any prayer that the term of office of the third respondent (TSC) commissioners had expired when the application was moved outrageous since their term of office was in effect.

“It must be stated that the applicants (SNAT) have stated in the founding affidavit that the application is brought in terms of Section 174(3) and are not challenging the powers of the appointing authority exercised in terms of Section 173(3) obviously being alive to Section 11 of the Constitution read with Section 16(2) of the Interpretation Act 21/1970,” reads government’s heads of argument.

In terms of Section 173(3), members of a service commission shall be appointed by the King on the recommendation of a line minister or any other authority as may be provided in this Constitution or any other law.

Section 173(4) provides that in making the recommendation to the King for the appointment of a member of a service commission, the line minister shall proceed in a competitive, transparent and open manner on the basis of suitable qualifications, competence and relevant experience and the minister shall endeavour to recommend a person who can effectively discharge the responsibilities of that office.

It was argued by government that SNAT moved its application in terms of Section 173(3) of the Constitution which allegedly goes against part of the founding affidavit.
 

 

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: