Tribunal throws out contempt case against DIS
Mpho Mokwape | Tuesday June 23, 2026 12:26
In a ruling delivered recently by the Tribunal Chairperson, Dr Godfrey Radijeng, the Tribunal said it had reviewed the legislation establishing the body and found no provision granting it authority to enforce its orders through contempt proceedings.
'The Tribunal cannot enforce its own order against the DIS,' he said. The applicants filed the application on June 10, 2024, arguing that the DIS had failed to fully comply with a consent order made an order of the Tribunal on February 4, 2022.
The order required the DIS to pay compensation to the applicants in agreed amounts and in accordance with the terms set out by both parties. The applicants asked the Tribunal to find the DIS in contempt for allegedly failing to pay the full amounts due under the order. They also sought an order compelling the DIS to settle the outstanding balance within 90 days and requested costs of the suit. The DIS opposed the application and raised several preliminary objections.
The Tribunal decided to first consider the issue of jurisdiction, stating that it was decisive to the case's outcome. This was after the attorney representing the DIS argued that the Tribunal lacked the legal authority to hear or determine contempt proceedings. The attorney submitted that the Tribunal is a statutory body created by the Intelligence and Security Services Act and can only exercise powers specifically granted by that law. According to the respondent, powers relating to the enforcement of orders and contempt proceedings are substantive powers that must be expressly provided for in legislation.
The DIS further argued that such powers cannot simply be assumed or inferred. In support of its argument, the DIS referred the Tribunal to provisions of the Land Tribunal Act, which expressly state that decisions of the Land Tribunal are enforceable in the same manner as decisions of a court of competent jurisdiction.
The respondent also argued that no similar provision exists in the law establishing the Tribunal on Intelligence and Security. The DIS also cited several court decisions, including Thabeng Properties (Pty) Ltd v Central District Council, where the Court of Appeal stated: 'This court is a creature of statute and derives its jurisdiction from the Constitution and the Court of Appeal Act and enjoys no inherent jurisdiction to engage in matters falling outside the dictates of the Tribunal'. The respondent argued that such principles could not be extended to the Tribunal because its powers are limited to those granted by statute. The attorney appearing for the applicants argued that the Tribunal should focus on achieving substantive justice and ensuring fairness between the parties.
However, the Tribunal, in its ruling, sided with the DIS and said it had reviewed the legislation that established it and agreed with the respondent's submissions.
Chairperson Radijeng stated that the Tribunal's constituting statute does not expressly provide coercive enforcement powers or jurisdiction to deal with contempt proceedings.
'I agree with the Respondents that this form of power cannot be inferred and hold that the constituting statute of the Tribunal is thus deficient in that regard,' the ruling stated. The Tribunal concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to enforce its own orders through contempt proceedings.
As a result, the preliminary objection succeeded, and the application was struck out. The Tribunal ordered that the application be struck out and made no order as to costs.