said, the officials of the DME, who dealt with this matter, “that purported to validate the permit even though it visibly was not valid, and the DME had no record of it” (para 39). The court also noted that Saamwerk had lodged a complaint with the SAPS in 2009 to investigate the forgery but had heard nothing. “Equally disturbing,” the court continued, that there is more than a hint of “is ineptitude if not venality among one or more of the officials of – – the DME who dealt with this matter. Yet no one has been held accountable” (para 40). The response to this situation was to request that a copy of the judgment would be deliver to the National Commissioner of the SAPS, the National Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Minister of Minerals and Energy (para 40). Outcome SA Soutwerk’s appeal was dismissed.
said, “that the officials of the DME, who dealt with this matter, purported to validate the permit even though it visibly was not valid, and the DME had no record of it” (para 39). The court also noted that Saamwerk had lodged a complaint with the SAPS in 2009 to investigate the forgery but had heard nothing. “Equally disturbing,” the court continued, “is that there is more than a hint of ineptitude – if not venality – among one or more of the officials of the DME who dealt with this matter. Yet no one has been held accountable” (para 40). The response to this situation was to request that a copy of the judgment would be deliver to the National Commissioner of the SAPS, the National Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Minister of Minerals and Energy (para 40). Outcome SA Soutwerk’s appeal was dismissed.
Case-note-_-SA-Soutwerke-v-Saamwerk-Soutwerke.docx