- The dagga allegation became the central issue influencing the refusal of a CSS contract.
- High Court supports the Ombud and the SANDF, finding no unfairness.
- SANDF contract dispute resolved with dismissal of the appeal, affirming a lawful and fair decision-making process.
Ebrahim Fisher entered the South African Navy with pride and hope. He believed that his time in the Military Skills Development System would lead to a permanent place in the SANDF.
However, during his service, he became linked to an allegation of dagga use. That allegation was the turning point that shaped his entire future.
When the High Court in Pretoria delivered its judgment on 14 November 2025, Judge Jerome Nyathi explained the impact of the charge very clearly. He wrote that the appellant was not recommended for a Core Service System (CSS) contract due to the pending disciplinary charge. This one line in the judgment shows how decisive the timing was.
Fisher faced a disciplinary process under the Military Discipline Code. It hung over him at the exact time when his application for a CSS contract was being assessed. He was never allowed to address the board before the decision was made. He only learned in December 2014 that he would not receive a permanent contract. Judge Nyathi recorded this fact plainly when he said that he was informed that he would not be awarded a CSS contract.
At that moment, his career path closed. But years later, he would be acquitted of the charge. For him, that outcome arrived too late.
Acquittal came but the opportunity had passed forever
In July 2016 Fisher was found not guilty. He believed this outcome should have opened the door to a permanent position. Internal recommendations even suggested that he should be considered again. But the SANDF did not change its decision.
When he took the matter to the Military Ombud, he hoped that the Ombud would see that the unfinished disciplinary charge had been the only barrier and that the acquittal should lead to relief. Instead, the Ombud found that the decision of the SANDF had been fair and correct at the time it was made.
Judge Nyathi repeated this position without hesitation. He wrote that the Ombud’s role is investigative, not appellate. He also noted that the appellant was given an opportunity to comment on the preliminary report but failed to do so.
This finding strengthened the view that the earlier decision had been lawful. The Ombud did not replace the judgment of the SANDF. The Ombud only checked whether the SANDF had acted within policy and the court found that it had done so.
The High Court closes the SANDF contract dispute
The court considered the idea that Fisher had a legitimate expectation to receive a CSS contract. Fisher relied on internal messages that were never sent to him and on general policy instructions. But the judges rejected this argument. Judge Nyathi held that the MSDS contract does not create an automatic entitlement to a CSS contract.
The judgment repeated that no promise had ever been made to Fisher. There was no right and no guarantee. Judge Nyathi stated that the appellant’s reliance on internal communications not addressed to him does not meet the threshold for a legitimate expectation.
The court also made a clear finding that the process used by the SANDF was fair. Judge Nyathi wrote that no procedural irregularity or irrationality has been demonstrated.
In the end, Judge Nyathi said that the appellant had failed to establish a legitimate expectation or any procedural unfairness in the respondents' conduct. The appeal was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
