Whether all the respondents should be liable for those costs is another matter as it appears that the initiator and driving force behind the disciplinary measures taken against C . . . is J. . . .. It is particularly disturbing that when he was asked about why the enquiry was dragging on, his response to his superior was misleading and he failed to apprise her of the ruling in November 2014, which was critical to whether the enquiry should proceed or not. It is also of concern that in doggedly persisting with his refusal to uplift C . . . .’s suspension, he was second guessing his superior’s judgment and purporting to exercise an authority which he did not have himself. Whether or not his motives for instituting proceedings against C . . . . and for suspending him were mala fide, his obstinacy in opposing the application when he was incapable of articulating a substantive basis for doing so in his answering affidavit appears to have been reckless and does raise the question whether he ought not to bear the applicant’s costs, rather than the Province.
Lagrange J in Popcru v MEC for the Department of Transport, Safety And Liaison: Northern Cape (J 662/15)  ZALCJHB 272 (27 August 2015) at para