Administrative Justice in South Africa An Introduction Second Ed
Administrative Justice in South Africa An Introduction Second Ed
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford
University Press Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd,
or as expressly permitted by law, by licence, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographic
rights organisation, DALRO, e Dramatic, Artistic and Literary Rights Organisation
[email protected]. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent
to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd, at the above address.
Acknowledgements
Publisher: Penny Lane
Development editor: Edward Ndiloseh
Project manager: Lindsay-Jane Lucks
Copy editor: Allison Lamb
Proofreader: Lee-Ann Ashcro
Indexer: Clifford Perusset
Typesetter: Nazley Samsodien
Cover: Design Studio
e authors and publisher gratefully acknowledge permission to reproduce copyright material in this
book. Every effort has been made to trace copyright holders, but if any copyright infringements have
been made, the publisher would be grateful for information that would enable any omissions or errors
to be corrected in subsequent impressions.
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford
disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this
work.
To my big brother Jacques:
anks for showing me the realities of public administration, I’ll miss you.
Geo Quinot
CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW IN SOUTH AFRICA
CHAPTER 6 LAWFULNESS
CHAPTER 8 REASONABLENESS
CHAPTER 9 REASONS
APPENDIX
BIBLIOGRAPHY
TABLE OF CASES
TABLE OF LEGISLATION
GLOSSARY
INDEX
CHAPTER 1 THE DEVELOPMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW IN SOUTH AFRICA
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Defining administrative law
1.2.1 A working definition
1.2.1.1 Administrative law as constitutional law
1.2.1.2 Two sides of public power
1.2.1.3 Administrative justice
1.2.1.4 The role of the legislature
1.2.1.5 Public authority and functions
1.2.1.6 Administrative law as rules of law
1.2.1.7 Rule of law
1.3 The development of South African administrative law
1.3.1 The consequences of ‘judge-made law’
1.3.2 The shifting line between the private and public spheres
1.3.3 The growth of discretionary authority
1.3.4 The distinction between executive and administrative authority
1.3.5 Distinguishing formally between review and appeal
1.3.6 The peculiar character of South African administrative law
1.3.7 Conclusion and defining some basic terminology
1.4 The reform of South African administrative law 1990 to 2000
1.4.1 First stage of reform
1.4.2 Second stage of reform
1.4.3 Third stage of reform
1.4.4 Fourth stage of reform
1.4.5 Superstructural reform
1.5 Outline of the general structure of the Promotion of Administrative Justice
Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA)
1.6 Outline of the various avenues to judicial review of administrative action
in South Africa
1.7 Concluding remarks about the current state of administrative law, and
some challenges
1.7.1 The current state of administrative law
1.7.2 Some challenges facing administrative law
CHAPTER 6 LAWFULNESS
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Authorisation
6.2.1 What?
6.2.1.1 Reason, purpose, motive
6.2.1.2 Omission
6.2.1.3 Changing a decision
6.2.2 Who?
6.2.2.1 Identity of the authorised administrator
6.2.2.2 Authorised bodies
6.2.2.3 Delegation
6.2.2.4 Influence and advice
6.2.3 How?
6.2.3.1 Prescribed procedures
6.2.3.2 Conditions
6.3 Mistakes
6.3.1 Error of law
6.3.2 Mistake of fact
6.4 Conclusion
CHAPTER 8 REASONABLENESS
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Reasonableness and related grounds of review
8.3 Symptomatic unreasonableness
8.4 Rationality
8.4.1 Rationality under PAJA
8.4.2 Rationality and legality
8.4.3 Rationality of process
8.4.4 Rationality and common-law review
8.5 Proportionality
8.5.1 Proportionality in South African courts
8.5.2 A test for proportionality in South African administrative law?
8.6 Vagueness
8.7 Reasonableness generally
8.8 Reasonableness and respect
8.8.1 Factors influencing reasonableness review
8.8.1.1 The nature of the decision
8.8.1.2 The identity and expertise of the decision-maker
8.8.1.3 The range of factors relevant to the decision
8.8.1.4 The reasons given for the decision
8.8.1.5 The nature of the competing interests involved
8.8.1.6 The impact of the decision on the lives and well-
being of those affected
CHAPTER 9 REASONS
9.1 Introduction
9.2 The right to reasons in section 5 of PAJA
9.2.1 Requesting reasons under section 5 of PAJA
9.2.1.1 Who may request reasons?
9.2.1.2 What must that person do in order to obtain
reasons?
9.2.2 Providing reasons under section 5 of PAJA
9.2.3 Failure to give reasons
9.2.4 Departure from requirements of section 5 of PAJA
9.2.5 Decisions requiring reasons to be furnished automatically
9.3 Adequacy of reasons
9.3.1 Are reasons revealing possible grounds of review ‘adequate’?
9.4 Procedure and remedies
9.5 Inconsistent sets of reasons
9.6 Reasons and legality
List of references
Table of cases
Table of legislation
Glossary
Index
Although a late bloomer, administrative law became a key eld of law in
pursuit of justice in South Africa prior to democratisation in 1994. In the
absence of a Bill of Rights and under parliamentary supremacy,
administrative law often offered the only avenue to challenge
bureaucratic decisions in law through the process of judicial review.
As with all law, the advent of constitutional democracy in 1994
ushered in a new paradigm for administrative law. e adoption of a
supreme Constitution with a justiciable Bill of Rights shifted
administrative law from a common-law based eld to one premised on
a fundamental right: the right to administrative justice. Today,
administrative law in South Africa should thus be understood as a set of
legal rules aimed at realising administrative justice.
e Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 de nes
administrative justice in section 33 in terms of a trio of principles as the
right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and
procedurally fair. It further provides that the right to reasons for
administrative action is included in these principles. Section 33(3) gives
Parliament the mandate of eshing out this right with the particular
instruction to balance efficient administration against control of
administrative action in protection of affected persons. e Promotion
of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000, generally known as PAJA, was
the product of this mandate. Together, section 33 and PAJA form the
backbone of administrative law in South Africa and hence the primary
legal tools to pursue administrative justice. Over the past two decades,
the courts have created a rich jurisprudence on this new
constitutionalised administrative law in South Africa.
Two key differences between administrative law as understood at
common law and administrative law in service of administrative justice
in South Africa today pervade this book. e rst is that administrative
justice is about much more than simply judicial review. Although
judicial review remains an important, and certainly still dominant,
process in pursuit of administrative justice in South Africa, there are a
host of other legal mechanisms that are just as important in realising
administrative justice today. e development of these mechanisms in
terms of administrative law is thus an important objective for the eld.
Second, administrative justice is not only about curbing the
administration in order to protect those affected by administrative
action, in other words, it is not only about control of the administration.
Administrative justice is also concerned with facilitating good and
efficient public decision-making in order to support the extensive social
justice mandate of the public administration under the Constitution.
Administrative justice is thus closely linked to social justice in South
Africa – it is about promoting the type of public administration that can
deliver on and re ect the social justice promises of the Constitution. In
this perspective, administrative law takes on both an instrumental and
intrinsic value. It is instrumental in pursuit of social justice, but it also
carries intrinsic value by re ecting in itself the values of the society that
the Constitution envisages.
is book aims to provide an introduction to administrative justice
in South Africa through an analysis of administrative law. It uses section
33 and PAJA as the framework to structure the analysis. e book is
intended to serve as a rst introduction to the eld and thus aims to
present the relevant legal rules in a clear and accessible manner. To this
purpose, lengthy and complex theoretical discussions are avoided,
although the existence of critical (theoretical) debates about particular
rules is highlighted for the reader to consider, often with an indication
of further reading. e book also strives to present the rules in a
practical context by extensive discussion of relevant case law and by
providing hypothetical scenarios to illustrate the application of the
rules.
e book starts out by sketching the eld of administrative law and its
development in South Africa in broad terms. e rst chapter thus
frames the rest of the book by positioning administrative law within its
historical and contemporary context.
Chapter Two sets out the institutional landscape within which
administrative law operates in South Africa. It pays particular attention
to the administration as the primary actor in this eld of law, which is
often neglected in the study of administrative law. As the chapter
indicates, an understanding of what the administration is and the
function it is meant to ful l within the state provides important further
context to the study of administrative law. Chapter ree turns to the
key concept in administrative law, namely that of administrative action.
Since the most basic de nition of administrative law is the law that
governs administrative action, it is critical to understand what an
administrative action is and how to identify it. ese are questions that
have become even more important under PAJA than under common
law, given the highly conceptual nature of the Act in adopting a
complicated de nition of administrative action.
Chapters Four and Five discuss the ways in which the law regulates
administrative action, that is through what mechanisms the rules of
administrative law are brought to bear on administrative action.
Chapter Four focuses speci cally on the non-judicial mechanisms to
enforce administrative law, while Chapter Five focuses on the still
dominant mechanism of judicial review. Combined, these chapters pay
particular attention to the need to develop mechanisms other than
judicial review and to view the various mechanisms in relation to each
other within the paradigm of administrative justice.
e following three chapters analyse in some detail the legal rules
constituting the three pillars of administrative justice, namely
lawfulness, procedural fairness and reasonableness respectively.
Chapter Nine focuses on the right to reasons as a major
development in administrative law under the Constitution in contrast to
the position at common law. It also explores the relationship between
reason-giving and the other principles of administrative justice.
Chapter Ten is a completely new chapter in this second edition and
aims to shift the attention away from judicial review and a reactive
perspective on administrative law to a proactive focus. e chapter aims
to explore the way in which administrative justice is relevant when
administrative decision-making is mandated. e chapter thus provides
a proactive perspective on administrative justice, that is, a perspective
on what the implications of administrative justice are when legislatures
(and other rule-makers) formulate mandates to take administrative
action.
e nal two chapters focus on the practical aspects of enforcing the
rules of administrative law in courts by means of the process of judicial
review. Chapter Eleven explores when a person can approach a court
for judicial review, that is the rules of standing in administrative law
judicial review, as well as the procedures to follow in bringing a review
application before a court. Chapter Twelve sets out the relief that a
court can grant in an application for judicial review. e chapter shows
that the area of remedies is one of particular ongoing development in
administrative law, with the Constitution and PAJA having introduced
new remedial options that remain unexplored.
Geo Quinot
Stellenbosch
April 2020
Administrative Justice in South Africa: An Introduction, second edition,
offers a clear and applied explanation of the principles and framework
of administrative justice in South Africa. It provides valuable focus on
the application of principles to case law, problem-solving methodology,
and speci c procedural aspects of administrative justice. e text offers
a clear pedagogical framework that develops independent, critical and
re ective engagement with the subject matter. A strong conceptual and
enquiring approach enriches knowledge, and engages readers in an
interactive, topical and challenging manner.
Example: is feature pro les extracts of legislation and case law
underpinning critical case discussions. Such illustration broadens the
reader’s understanding, and encourages independent insight.
List of references: is feature appears at the end of the book. e list
of reference works covers the most important South African sources, as
well as relevant international and comparative sources.
Allison Anthony
BA (Law), LLB, LLM, LLD (Stellenbosch)
Allison Anthony is a senior lecturer in the Department of Public,
Constitutional and International Law at the College of Law, University
of South Africa (UNISA), where she presents courses in administrative
law at undergraduate and postgraduate level. She is also Deputy
Director of the African Procurement Law Unit at Stellenbosch
University and co-editor of the African Public Procurement Law Journal.
She publishes research in the areas of administrative law and public
procurement law. Allison is also an admitted attorney and has been
involved in training lawyers in the eld of administrative law.
Janice Bleazard
BA (Hons), LLB (Cape Town), LLM (New York)
Janice Bleazard is an Advocate of the High Court of South Africa and a
practising member of the Cape Bar, who specialises in administrative
law and constitutional law.
Steven Budlender SC
BA LLB (Witwatersrand), LLM (New York)
Steven Budlender is a Senior Counsel and Advocate of the High Court of
South Africa and a member of the Pan African Bar Association of South
Africa. He has a varied practice with a particular focus on constitutional
law and administrative law. He has appeared in more than 100 matters
in the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court of Appeal.
Raisa Cachalia
BA, LLB, LLM (Witwatersrand)
Raisa Cachalia is a lecturer in the Faculty of Law at the University of
Johannesburg where she teaches administrative law and legal skills at
undergraduate level. Her research interests include administrative law
and constitutional law, as well as the developing eld of digital privacy
and the role of regulation in an age of disruptive technologies. She is an
editor at the Constitutional Court Review journal and sits on a panel of
legal consultants at Caveat Legal (Pty) Ltd where she provides advice on
a broad range of regulatory issues, particularly in the areas of public
procurement and data protection. Raisa was formerly a researcher at
the South African Institute for Advanced Constitutional, Public, Human
Rights and International Law (SAIFAC), a centre of the University of
Johannesburg. She also served as a Clerk at the Constitutional Court of
South Africa, to Deputy Chief Justice Zondo and then Justice Froneman.
Prior to her research and teaching career, Raisa was admitted as an
Attorney of the High Court after completing her articles at Bowman
Gil llan Inc.
Hugh Corder
BCom LLB (Cape Town), LLB (Cantab), DPhil (Oxon)
Hugh Corder is Professor Emeritus of Public Law at the University of
Cape Town, and a Fellow of this University. He serves currently as the
Interim Director of the Graduate School of Business. He taught
administrative law (at LLB and LLM levels) for 35 years, including a
course in comparative administrative law in the Commonwealth for the
LLM programme at Melbourne University in the early 2000s. Hugh is an
Advocate of the High Court of South Africa. He has played a leading role
in the reform of administrative law in South Africa since 1991, and
served as a technical adviser in the drafting of the transitional Bill of
Rights. Hugh has published widely in the elds of constitutional and
administrative law, with a particular focus on judicial appointment and
accountability, and mechanisms for furthering administrative
accountability. Hugh has contributed over many decades to the rule of
law and social justice, through community work and service on the
boards of non-governmental organisations.
Meghan Finn
BSocSci Honours (Cape Town), LLB (Cape Town), BCL (Oxon)
Meghan Finn is an nGAP lecturer in the Department of Public Law of
the University of Johannesburg. She is an Advocate of the High Court of
South Africa, practised at the Johannesburg Bar, and previously served
as a Clerk of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. Meghan is
currently pursuing her PhD with the SARChI Chair on Equality, Law
and Social Justice at the University of Witwatersrand. She has broad
research interests in constitutional and administrative law, and is an
editor of Constitutional Court Review.
Michael Kidd
BCom, LLB, LLM, PhD (Natal)
Michael Kidd is Professor in the School of Law, University of KwaZulu-
Natal, where he has lectured administrative law and environmental law
at undergraduate and postgraduate level for 30 years. Michael is the
author of one of the leading South African textbooks in environmental
law and has published almost 100 peer-reviewed papers within the
elds of administrative law, environmental law, and water law, all of
which are underpinned by administrative decision-making. He is also
Principal Editor of the South African Journal of Environmental Law and
Policy.
uli Madonsela
BA (Law) (Swaziland), LLB (Witwatersrand)
uli Madonsela is Chair in Social Justice at Stellenbosch University
and founder of the uma Foundation for Democracy Leadership and
Literacy. As the former Public Protector of South Africa and full-time
Law Commissioner in the South African Law Reform Commission, Prof
Madonsela has an extensive background in applied administrative law
principles, mainly based on her public service years and investigations
into improper conduct in state affairs. She was one of the drafters of the
Constitution and a key participant in the conceptualisation and drafting
of several laws, including the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act.
She also helped draft several international rights instruments and
country reports. She currently teaches constitutional law,
administrative law, social justice law, democracy and governance and
has written and published extensively on these matters. An Advocate of
the High Court of South Africa and honorary member of the Botswana
Bar, Prof Madonsela has eight honorary law doctorates in addition to
her law degrees. A mother of two, she is an avid mountaineer who has
summited Kilimanjaro under #Trek4Mandela to promote the Social
Justice M-Plan.
Petrus Maree
BA (Law), LLD (Stellenbosch)
Petrus Maree is an artist and independent researcher based in Berlin
and Cape Town. He obtained his LLD at Stellenbosch University, where
he was also a post-doctoral fellow and taught introduction to law,
constitutional law and administrative law. Between 2009 and 2016, he
served as a member of the Overarching Strategic Plan (OSP) Project (on
Combating Poverty, Homelessness and Socio-Economic Vulnerability
under the Constitution) and of the Socio-Economic Rights and
Administrative Justice Research (SERAJ) Project. Petrus’s publications
focus on critical, principle-based approaches to freedom,
administrative law, deference, and the separation of powers.
Melanie Murcott
LLB (Cape Town), LLM (Pretoria), LLD (North-West)
Melanie Murcott is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Public Law at
the University of Pretoria, where she lectures administrative and
environmental law. Her scholarly interests also include constitutional
law and socio-economic rights. Melanie is a practising Attorney of the
High Court of South Africa, and a Solicitor of England and Wales (non-
practising roll). Prior to her academic career, her practice in
commercial litigation included a focus on public procurement.
Melanie’s doctoral research concerned the ways in which the courts
can, in the adjudication of environmental law disputes, more effectively
contribute towards South Africa’s project of transformative
constitutionalism and its pursuit of social justice.
Mfundo Salukazana
LLB (Witwatersrand), LLM (London)
Mfundo Salukazana is an Advocate of the High Court and a member of
the Johannesburg Bar. He formerly served as a Clerk of the
Constitutional Court of South Africa, to Justice Edwin Cameron.
Mfundo is developing a broad practice with his core areas of practice
being in administrative law, banking and nancial services, commercial
litigation and constitutional law.
Emma Webber
BSocSci (PPE), LLB (Cape Town), BCL (Oxon)
Emma Webber is an Advocate of the High Court of South Africa and a
member of the Pan African Bar Association of South Africa and the
Johannesburg Bar. She formerly served as a Clerk of the Constitutional
Court of South Africa, to Justice Edwin Cameron. Emma has a varied
practice, which includes public interest, regulatory and commercial
litigation. Her area of particular expertise is administrative law and
constitutional law.
The development of
administrative law in South Africa
HUGH CORDER
1.1 Introduction
1.5 Outline of the general structure of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000
(PAJA)
1.6 Outline of the various avenues to judicial review of administrative action in South Africa
1.7 Concluding remarks about the current state of administrative law, and some challenges
1.7.1 The current state of administrative law
1.7.2 Some challenges facing administrative law
1.1 Introduction
Administrative law is everywhere. e cellphone service that you use,
the public transport system that brings you to your class, work or home,
the preparation and packaging of the food you buy in a supermarket,
and so on, are all regulated by government agencies, whose actions are
subject to administrative law.
Administrative law is concerned with the exercise of public power or
the performance of a public function: it is indisputably part of ‘public
law’. An effective system of administrative law is a fundamental element
in the idea of the ‘rule of law’, and thus critical to the transformative
nature of constitutional democracy in South Africa. Perhaps one of the
most-quoted statements in judgments of the courts is that written by
Professor Mureinik1 in 1994, that the Constitution demands that we
must move from a ‘culture of authority to a culture of justi cation’.
Mureinik was a leading administrative lawyer, and he argued strongly
that administrative law was a key element in transformative
constitutionalism.2
e purpose of this chapter is to provide the context for all the
chapters that follow in this book.3 e scene will be set by de ning
administrative law, by describing critically its origins and development
over the past century or so, and by outlining brie y the basic building
blocks of this area of the law as we know it today.
Before considering the above matters, however, think about the
following situation.
Law as compromise
Does this characterisation of administrative law make it
different from all other parts of law, or most of them? In
other words, is all law not something of a compromise?
Think of the other areas of law that you have already
studied: did you come across areas where no one
particular rule definitively governed a practical problem
or where a rule was not absolutely clear, so that different
interpretations or perspectives may lead to different
outcomes in the application of the rule? Many would
argue that there needs to be a degree of certainty about
the applicability of a rule of law, especially in the
criminal law, otherwise there would be chaos in society.
In other words, we must readily concede that a
substantial measure of certainty is a desirable quality to
expect of all legal rules, also of administrative law. At the
same time, we should be conscious of the imprecise
edges of uncertainty in many parts of law, because that
is often the most interesting part, ripe for creative
lawyering and development.
Let us take note of several key aspects of the above working de nition.
3. Delegation of powers.–
You may have noticed that the amount of discretion available to the
administrator decreases as you read down this list, from a very high
level in the rst category to negligible in the last. is approach assisted
the judge in determining the appropriate level of deference to display in
his or her judgment, as the depth of judicial scrutiny varied according to
the class of action being reviewed. In contrast to the extent of official
discretion, the degree of judicial scrutiny on review becomes greater as
you read down the list. In principle, the classi cation of functions was a
very useful tool for judges to determine their approach, provided that it
continued to facilitate predictability of judicial action and remained as a
means to the end of administrative accountability, rather than as an end
in itself. Regrettably, some judges tended to stray towards the latter
approach, applying the classi cation of functions as a sort of formula
which detracted from the true objective of judicial review of
administrative action, a trend which Schreiner JA warned against in the
1950s in the following terms:20
e classi cation of discretions and functions under the headings of
‘administrative’, ‘quasi-judicial’ and ‘judicial’ has been much canvassed in
modern judgments and juristic literature; there appears to be some difference of
opinion, or of linguistic usage, as to the proper basis of classi cation, and even
some disagreement as to the usefulness of the classi cation when achieved. I do
not propose to enter into these interesting questions to a greater extent than is
necessary for the decision of this case; one must be careful not to elevate what
may be no more than a convenient classi cation into a source of legal rules.
FURTHER READING
• 1993 Acta Juridica
• Baxter, L (1984) Administrative Law Cape Town: Juta
• Currie, I (2007) The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act A Commentary
(2nd ed) Cape Town: Siber Ink
• De Ville, JR (2003) Judicial Review of Administrative Action in South Africa
Durban: LexisNexis Butterworth
• Hoexter, C (2012) Administrative Law in South Africa (2nd ed) Cape Town: Juta
• Quinot, G (2008) Administrative Law Cases & Materials Cape Town: Juta
1 Mureinik, E (1994) A Bridge to Where? Introducing the Interim Bill of Rights SAJHR
10(1):31 at 38–44.
2 Mureinik, E (1993) Reconsidering Review: Participation and Accountability Acta Juridica
35.
3 e leading texts in this eld are listed at the end of this chapter, and provide essential
context.
4 Dicey, AV (1924) Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (8th ed) at 198–
199.
5 See the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) e Rule of Law in a Free Society: A Report
on the International Congress of Jurists, New Delhi India, January 5–10 1959, for the
founding statement of its principles.
6 See the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) e Dynamic Aspects of the Rule of Law: A
Report on the International Congress of Jurists, Bangkok ailand, 1965.
7 For the most extensive treatment of this aspect, see Taitz, J (1985) e Inherent Jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court.
8 See Dugard (1978) Human Rights and the South African Legal Order.
9 See Forsyth, CF (1985) In Danger for their Talents: A Study of the Appellate Division of the
Supreme Court of South Africa from 1950-80.
See Shidiack v Union Government (Minister of the Interior) 1912 AD 642, especially in the
10 judgments of Innes ACJ and Laurence J.
11 Corder (1984) Judges at Work Chapter 9 and Postscript.
12 Ellmann (1992) In a Time of Trouble Law and Liberty in South Africa’s State of Emergency.
13 For wider discussion, see Hoexter, C (2000) e Future of Judicial Review in South African
Administrative Law SALJ 117(3):484; O’Regan, K (2004) Breaking Ground: Some oughts
on the Seismic Shift in our Administrative Law SALJ 121(2):424; Corder, H (2004) Without
Deference, with Respect: A Response to Justice O’Regan [comments] SALJ 121(2):438; and
Davis, DM (2006) To Defer and en When? Administrative Law and Constitutional
Democracy Acta Juridica 23.
14 Harlow and Rawlings (2009) Law and Administration (3rd ed).
15 See the remarks of Innes ACJ and Laurence J in Shidiack, referred to in note 10.
16 Rossouw v Sachs 1964 (2) SA 551 (A) and Schermbrucker v Klindt NO 1965 (4) SA 606 (A).
17 For detailed treatment of the development of the law relating to implied delegation of
authority, see the judgment of Langa CJ in AAA Investments (Pty) Ltd v Micro Finance
Regulatory Council and Another 2007 (1) SA 343 (CC) paras 74–91.
18 e Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
19 13 of 2002.
20 See Pretoria North Town Council v A1 Electric Ice-Cream Factory (Pty) Ltd 1953 (3) SA 1 (A)
at 11.
21 Bamford, BR (1967) Race Reclassi cation SALJ 84(1):37, and the many cases cited there.
22 27 of 1914; Sachs and Diamond v Minister of Justice 1934 AD 11.
23 44 of 1950.
24 See the incisive analysis and critique of these laws in Mathews, AS (1986) Freedom, State
Security and the Rule of Law.
25 Budlender, G (1988) Law and Lawlessness in South Africa SAJHR 4(2):139.
26 For example, see R v Ngwevela 1954 (1) SA 123 (A) and Saliwa v Minister of Native Affairs
1956 (2) SA 310 (A).
27 For example, see Loza v Police Station Commander, Durbanville 1964 (2) SA 545 (A).
28 For example, see Schermbrucker v Klindt NO 1965 (4) SA 606 (A).
29 e earlier cases in the 1950s witnessed more successful applications, but once the judicial
personnel had changed, the general attitude towards the rights of those subjected to state
action seemed to harden: see Dugard (1978) at 360–365, and Chapter 9 generally.
30 is approach reached its greatest extent during the states of emergency in the late 1980s:
for the most extensive analysis of this issue, see Ellmann (1992).
31 e most authoritative restatement of which is to be found in JSE and Another v
Witwatersrand Nigel 1988 (3) SA 132 (A) at 152 C ff.
32 ese rules, usually expressed in their Latin format as audi alteram partem (hear the other
side) and nemo judex in sua causa esse debet (no one should be a judge in their own
cause/interest), are regarded as ‘natural’ because they are said to be inalienable rights
under the common law.
33 Such as the Riotous Assemblies and Criminal Law Amendment Act 27 of 1914, section
1(13).
34 For further details of this process, see Corder, H. ‘Reviewing Review: Much Achieved, Much
More to Do’ in Corder, H and van der Vijver, L (Eds) (2002) Realising Administrative Justice
at 1–19.
35 See Corder, H (1993) Introduction: Administrative Law Reform Acta Juridica 1 for a report
on the event and for a copy of the Declaration, at 17–20. Most of the papers delivered on
that occasion are included in that same volume.
36 For a fuller account of this drafting history, see Du Plessis, LM and Corder, H (1994)
Understanding South Africa’s Transitional Bill of Rights at 165–170.
37 See Hoexter (2000) at 484–519.
38 See the authors referred to in note 48 below.
39 For a summary treatment, see Hoexter, C (2006) ‘Administrative Action’ in the Courts Acta
Juridica 303.
40 In fact, PAJA has been amended to facilitate this process: see the addition of section 9A
Designation and Training of Judicial Officers.
41 In Government Notice (GN) No. 1216 in Government Gazette (GG) 42717 of 19.09.2019, the
Minister of Justice purports to designate all regional and magistrates’ courts as ‘courts’ for
purposes of review under PAJA. is arrangement came into effect on 1 October 2019, so it
is too early to assess its impact in the widening of access to administrative justice.
42 See the judgment of O’Regan J in Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental
Affairs and Others 2004 (4) SA 490 (CC).
43 us, have the courts been able still to hold that ‘vagueness’ and ‘acting under dictation’
are valid grounds of review in the constitutional era.
44 Rules for applying for judicial review of administrative action in a High Court were
promulgated in the GG No. 42740 of 04.10.19; they came into effect on 1 November 2019.
45 e SA Law Reform Commission recommended that the establishment of such a body be
mandatory.
46 GN R 1022 (GG 23764 of 31.07.2002).
47 For a provocative view of the impact of PAJA, see Currie, I (2006) What Difference Does the
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Make to Administrative Law Acta Juridica 325.
48 See, for example, Plasket, C (2002) e Exhaustion of Internal Remedies and Section 7(2) of
the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 SALJ 119(1):50, and Hoexter, C (2012)
Administrative Law in South Africa (2nd ed), at 532–543.
49 Hoexter calls these ‘pathways’ to review, and is chie y responsible for identifying them as
such in her work over the past decade: see Hoexter (2000), and also Hoexter, C ‘e Rule of
Law and the Principle of Legality in South African Administrative Law Today’ in Carnelly,
M and Hoctor, S (Eds) (2011) Law, Order and Liberty Essays in Honour of Tony Mathews at
55–74.
50 e founding authority for such a view is to be seen in President of the Republic of South
Africa and Others v South African Rugby Football Union and Others 2000 (1) SA 1 (CC).
51 See Judicial Service Commission and Another v Cape Bar Council and Another 2013 (1) SA
170 (SCA).
52 See Gcaba v Minister for Safety and Security and Others 2010 (1) SA 238 (CC).
53 66 of 1995.
54 See Zondi v MEC for Traditional and Local Government Affairs and Others 2005 (3) SA 589
(CC).
55 See Umfolozi Transport (Edms) Bpk v Minister van Vervoer [1997] 2 All SA 548 (A).
56 See, for example, Cape Metropolitan Council v Metro Inspection Services (Western Cape) CC
and Others 2001 (3) SA 1013 (SCA) and Logbro Properties CC v Bedderson NO and Others
2003 (2) SA 460 (SCA).
57 See Steenkamp NO v Provincial Tender Board, Eastern Cape 2007 (3) SA 121 (CC).
58 Among the chief cases in this regard, see Fredericks v MEC for Education and Training,
Eastern Cape 2002 (2) SA 693 (CC), Chirwa v Transnet Ltd and Others 2008 (4) SA 367 (CC),
and Gcaba v Minister for Safety and Security and Others 2010 (1) SA 238 (CC).
59 See, for example, Joseph and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others 2010 (4) SA 55 (CC),
and Mazibuko and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others 2010 (4) SA 1 (CC).
60 See the excellent explanation of this development in Hoexter (2011) 55, note 49 above. For
a recent example in the case law, see Albutt v Centre for the Study of Violence and
Reconciliation and Others 2010 (3) SA 293 (CC).
61 For example, see Millennium Waste Management (Pty) Ltd v Chairperson, Tender Board:
Limpopo Province and Others 2008 (2) SA 481 (SCA).
62 See Allpay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Chief Executive Officer,
South African Social Security Agency and Others 2013 (4) SA 557 (SCA), referring to the
judgment of Matojane J a quo in the North Gauteng High Court, at para 2, who had found
the tender process to be invalid, but had refused to set it aside. is matter was then
appealed to the Constitutional Court, under the same name, which overruled the SCA
judgment (Allpay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Chief Executive
Officer, South African Social Security Agency and Others 2014 (1) SA 604 (CC)), and set aside
the tender award in contention, but postponed granting any further remedy, pending a
further hearing some months later.
63 See the treatment of this area of the law in the works referred to in note 13 above.
Administrative authorities in legal
context
PETRUS MAREE
2.1 Introduction
2.1 Introduction
What is the administration? What is administrative law? To whom does
administrative law apply? ese are not straightforward questions: they
do not lead to straightforward answers and they prove challenging
because they are often neglected and cannot be addressed in a vacuum.
However, an awareness of context and complexity is essential to
appreciating administrative justice. erefore, this chapter sketches the
broad contours of the conceptual framework and context within which
these questions are posed.
De ning the concepts and nomenclature necessary for a discussion
on public authorities and administrative law serves as the chapter’s
point of departure. Subsequently the constitutional framework within
which the administration operates is discussed. Normative imperatives
imposed by the Constitution, such as democracy, and institutional
principles, such as the separation of powers, are always relevant to an
understanding or analysis of administrative authorities. erefore any
response to the question ‘what is the administration?’ must be based on
these constitutional provisions.
On the basis of the constitutional and conceptual framework,
speci c examples of administrative authorities are discussed. e
examples include national departments, a Chapter 9 institution and a
state-owned company. e legislative framework and the institutional
nature of each institution are set out in order to illustrate the diversity of
administrative authorities. However, there are shared characteristics:
for instance, administrative authorities are typically concerned with the
implementation of legislation and the performance of public functions.
Finally, the relationship between institutions that can be described
as administrative authorities and administrative law is explained.
2.2.1 State
e word ‘state’ is a broad term bearing a number of meanings.
Although the Constitution refers to ‘state’ consistently, it is not de ned.
e Oxford English Dictionary lists the de nitions of state relevant to
this discussion under the heading of ‘commonwealth or polity’.3 In this
sense, state can refer to a community, living in a speci ed geographical
area with its own political organisation, or a nation. For example, the
Freedom Charter provides that ‘South Africa shall be a fully
independent state which respects the rights and sovereignty of all
nations’. In this sense state signi es the nation in a broad sense,
comprising political, economic, cultural and private entities and
activities.
State can also refer to the geographical area inhabited by such a
community. For example, article 12 of the African Charter on Human
and Peoples’ Rights provides that ‘[e]very individual shall have the right
to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of a State …’.
‘e state’, often with a capital S, refers to ‘[t]he body politic as organized
for supreme civil rule and government’.4 us the state refers to the
apparatus of a nation endowed with public authority, including the
executive, legislature, judiciary, police etc. In this sense, the term serves
as a collective noun describing the totality of entities endowed with
public authority. Louis XIV famously declared ‘I am the State’5 to mean
the monarch wields absolute power. In other words, the monarch is the
ultimate authority on all forms of public power (legislative, executive,
judicial and administrative) and the embodiment of that power; thus
the body politic, the state, is the monarch. e Constitution provides a
more recent example of this usage of ‘state’ as body politic: section 26(2)
of the right to housing holds that ‘[t]he state must take reasonable
legislative and other measures … to achieve the progressive realisation
of this right’. Similarly, criminal law cases employ the word state in this
sense: consider the designation S v Makwanyane and Another,6 where S
designates ‘the State’.
Finally, state can also signify the type of constitution operating in a
country. For example, section 1 of the Constitution reads ‘[t]he Republic
of South Africa is one, sovereign, democratic state’; article 1 of the 1977
Soviet Constitution reads as follows:
e Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a socialist state of the whole people,
expressing the will and interests of the workers, peasants, and intelligentsia, the
working people of all the nations and nationalities of the country.
‘State’ can be used in more than one sense in a given context and,
evidently, all of these de nitions can overlap.
2.2.2 Executive
‘Executive’, as a noun, is a more technical term than ‘state’. Executive
generally refers to that branch within the separation of powers primarily
concerned with the formulation of policy and the implementation of
legislation and policy. is term is crucial to the study of administrative
law.
In the South African context, executive is de ned by section 85 of
the Constitution:
(1) e executive authority of the Republic is vested in the President.
(2) e President exercises the executive authority, together with the other
members of the Cabinet …
2.3.1 Democracy
Democracy is repeatedly emphasised throughout the Constitution:25 the
Constitution entrenches general notions of democracy as well as more
speci c conceptions of democracy, such as participation. Since
democracy is a founding constitutional principle, the public
administration is also bound to uphold and promote it. Section 1
provides that South Africa is ‘founded’ on ‘[u]niversal adult suffrage, a
national common voters roll, regular elections and a multi-party system
of democratic government, to ensure accountability, responsiveness
and openness’.26 When read with the supremacy clause, the importance
of democratic principles to the state as a whole, including the
administration, is evident. More speci cally, section 195(1) provides
that the ‘[p]ublic administration must be governed by the democratic
values and principles enshrined in the Constitution’.27
As mentioned, the Constitution entrenches various conceptions of
democracy. Section 17 provides for a measure of direct democracy and
section 34 provides for representative democracy. Section 57(1)(b),
regulating the internal arrangements of the National Assembly,
provides that the ‘National Assembly may … make rules and orders
concerning its business, with due regard to representative and
participatory democracy, accountability, transparency and public
involvement.’ Similarly, section 59(1)(a), regulating public access to and
involvement in the National Assembly, provides that the ‘National
Assembly must facilitate public involvement in the legislative and other
processes of the Assembly and its committees’.28 ese provisions are
expressions of participatory democracy, con rmed by the
Constitutional Court: ‘[o]ur Constitution contemplates a democracy
that is representative, and that also contains elements of participatory
democracy’.29 Similarly, section 195 requires the administration to
promote participation in policy-making.30
e importance of participation is revealed by the form of its
protection: the Constitution safeguards participation at the legislative
function, even where representation is strongest at national and
provincial level. us, the Constitution requires, in express terms,
participation at the formulation of generally applicable rules. In the
South African context, given the traditional, tripartite understanding of
the separation of powers, a history of unchecked parliamentary
sovereignty and a Diceyan legacy on administrative law, it is not
surprising that rule-making and its regulation are regarded as almost
solely the purview of the legislature.31 Nevertheless, sections 3 and 4 of
PAJA illustrate the importance of participation in the processes of
branches of state other than the legislature.32
However, the Constitution holds that the courts ‘must declare that any
law or conduct that is inconsistent with the Constitution is invalid’.36
us the courts are constrained to uphold the Constitution as a whole
and not only the Bill of Rights.37 In addition, legality, based on the rule
of law in section 1, is directly enforceable38 and the courts have, for
example, consistently applied section 217 to instances of public
procurement.39
Figure 2.1 The ‘pure doctrine’ of the separation of powers or trias politica
is section illustrates that the term executive, in its overarching sense,
refers both to the formulation of policy as well as the implementation of
policy and legislation. However, the question as to what constitutes the
administration and its corresponding function is left unexplored.
e President lists the national departments in Schedule 1 of the
Public Service Act, 1994 (Proclamation 103 of 1994).80 e President is
empowered by section 7(5)(a) to determine the number and functions
of departments:
(5) Subject to section 7A and the principles contained in section 195 of the
Constitution, the President may by proclamation in the Gazette—
(a) on the advice of the Minister amend Schedule 1 so as to establish or
abolish any national department, designate such department and the
head thereof or amend any such designation.
e list changes regularly: even though the ANC has been in power
since South Africa’s rst democratic elections, the number of
departments has varied continually. However, overall the number has
been increasing steadily, in line with the ‘rise of the administrative
state’. With the promulgation of the Public Service Act, 1994
(Proclamation 103 of 1994), in terms of section 237(3) of the interim
Constitution,81 Schedule 1 listed twenty-six departments.82 In 2009
shortly after Zuma’s election as president, Schedule 1 was amended to
list over forty departments.83 us not only the number of departments
changes regularly, but also the functions associated with each
department. It is virtually impossible to formulate a pointed description
of the nature of all departments, since some are concerned with
providing services and others with regulation, for example. It is also
beyond the scope of this chapter to provide a description of each.
However, selected examples of departments are discussed below in
order to identify those aspects relevant to understanding departments
in general: the department’s constitutional and legislative framework,
its institutional structure, and its powers and functions.
Institutional structure
e Department of Water and Sanitation,90 its appellation since 2014, is
a national department. e Ministry for Water and Sanitation heads the
department. erefore the political head of the department is the
Minister for Water and Sanitation. e administrative head of the
department is the Director-General for the department.91
Figure 2.4 The constitutional context and structure of the Department of Water and Sanitation
us, the Minister gave legal force to the White Paper in issuing these
regulations. Simultaneously the Minister implemented the legislation in
issuing the regulations by exercising the powers granted by the statute.
However, instead of formulating policy, the promulgation of regulations
amounts to the implementation of legislation and, in this case, of policy
also. e administration itself is then tasked with implementing those
regulations, in this case the Department of Water and Sanitation and
provincial and local administrations.
Institutional structure
e administrative authorities that fall within the Ministry of Finance
include the Treasury, the South African Revenue Service, the Public
Investment Corporation, Statistics South Africa, the Financial
Intelligence Centre and the Financial Services Board.
Figure 2.5 The institutional structure of the Ministry of Finance
National Treasury
Section 216 of the Constitution provides that:
(1) National legislation must establish a National Treasury and prescribe
measures to ensure both transparency and expenditure control in each
sphere of government, by introducing -
(a) generally recognised accounting practice;
(b) uniform expenditure classi cations; and
(c) uniform treasury norms and standards.
(2) e National Treasury must enforce compliance with the measures
established in terms of subsection (1), and may stop the transfer of funds to
an organ of state if that organ of state commits a serious or persistent
material breach of those measures.
All monies collected by SARS must be paid into the National Revenue
Fund.114
According to section 2 of the PFMA the purpose of the statute:
is to secure transparency, accountability, and sound management of the revenue,
expenditure, assets and liabilities of the institutions to which this Act applies.
(a) exercise the functions and powers assigned to an accounting officer in terms
of this Act; and
(b) provide guidance and advice on compliance with this Act to—
the political structures, political office-bearers and officials of the
(i)
municipality; and
(ii) any municipal entity under the sole or shared control of the
municipality.
Finally, ‘no person or organ of state may interfere with the functioning
of [the public protector]’.
Evidently, the independence of Chapter 9 institutions is secured in
language similar to those sections which establish the independence of
the judiciary.148 Nevertheless, the Public Protector is not a judicial
institution.
Although section 182(1)(c) provides that the Public Protector can ‘take
appropriate remedial action’, the wording of this section is not that same
as that of section 165(5). Whether or not this implies that the Public
Protector’s ndings have binding force is unclear.
is section illustrates how a large proportion of legal activity and
dispute takes place out of the courts, even assuming that the dispute
may at some stage go to court. It is important to note that administrative
law operates outside of judicial review, as explained by green-light
theories discussed further below.
2.5.3.6 Commissions
Commissions are a regular feature in the political and legal landscape of
South Africa. However, a wide variety of institutions performing
different functions are called commissions and therefore it is important
to bear in mind that commissions are not homogenous institutions. For
instance, some commissions are permanent institutions and others are
created for a limited period of time to perform a particular function.
Whether commissions are subject to administrative law will depend on
the nature of the function performed,153 but generally they are
concerned with the implementation of legislation. erefore,
commissions serve as another example of institutions that can be
classi ed as public authorities (often performing a public function).
One example of a permanent institutional body named a
commission is the Public Service Commission. Section 196 of the
Constitution establishes the Public Service Commission and
determines its institutional status:
196. Public Service Commission. –
(1) ere is a single Public Service Commission for the Republic.
(2) e Commission is independent and must be impartial, and must exercise
its powers and perform its functions without fear, favour or prejudice in the
interest of the maintenance of effective and efficient public administration
and a high standard of professional ethics in the public service. e
Commission must be regulated by national legislation.
(3) Other organs of state, through legislative and other measures, must assist
and protect the Commission to ensure the independence, impartiality,
dignity and effectiveness of the Commission. No person or organ of state
may interfere with the functioning of the Commission.
To this one could add ‘less formal’ sources of administrative power such
as standards, practice notes, circulars etc.188 us the origins of
administrative power, as well the rules governing the exercise of that
power, are diverse. is raises concerns of democratic legitimacy and
the counter-majoritarian dilemma where the administration has
formulated a rule, rather than the legislature.
FURTHER READING
• Ackerman, B ‘Good-bye, Montesquieu’ in Rose-Ackerman, S, Lindseth, PL and
Emerson, B (Eds) (2017) Comparative Administrative Law (2nd ed)
Cheltenham, UK & Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing
• Harlow, C and Rawlings, R (2009) Law and Administration (3rd ed) Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, Chapter 1
• Maree, PJH (2013) Investigating an Alternative Administrative-Law System in
South Africa Unpublished doctoral dissertation (US) Chapter 2
(http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/85591)
• Vile, MJC (1998) Constitutionalism and the Separation of Powers (2nd ed)
Oxford: Clarendon Publishers
1 Section 1 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 de nes ‘state-owned companies’ as ‘a public
entity in Schedule 2 or 3 of the Public Finance Management Act [1 of 1999]’, such as Eskom.
A public entity, in turn, refers to ‘a juristic person under the ownership control of the
national executive’ (from the de nitions of national public entity, national government
business enterprise, section 1 PFMA). us ‘state’, in this context, denotes the executive,
rather than constitutional and political institutions in their totality.
2 For instance, Dr Matebesi, referring to his research on service-delivery protests, explains
that ‘[w]ith the increase of violence, the space for building trust between the state and civil
society is decreasing’ (University of the Free State ‘UFS Research Sheds Light on Service
Delivery Protests in South Africa’ (03.02.2015) Mail & Guardian
https://www.ufs.ac.za/templates/news-archive/campus-
news/2019/february/worldmothertongueday-celebrating-your-native-langue-mother-
tongue?NewsItemID=5231 (emphasis added)). In this context, ‘state’ can be read in a broad
sense, referring to a range of national, political institutions comprising the policy branch,
the public administration and legislative organs.
3 ‘state, n.’ OED Oxford English Dictionary: e De nitive Record of the English Language,
Oxford University Press 2019 Online available at: http://www.oed.com/ (accessed
23.10.2019). Reproduced with permission of OUP (Book) through PLSclear.
4 OED (2019) ‘state’.
5 ‘L’état, c’est moi’.
6 1995 (3) SA 391 (CC).
7 2001 (2) SA 1 (CC).
8 2000 (1) SA 1 (CC).
9 Permanent Secretary, Department of Education and Welfare, Eastern Cape and Another v
Ed-U-College (PE) (Section21) Inc 2001 (2) SA 1 (CC) para 18. Cf. the approach followed in
Mazibuko and Others v City of Johannesburg 2010 (4) SA 1 (CC).
10 See sections 125 and 151(2) of the Constitution.
11 Vile, MJC (1998) Constitutionalism and the Separation of Powers (2nd ed) 400.
12 Currie, I & De Waal, J (2001) e New Constitutional and Administrative Law Volume One
Constitutional Law 228.
13 Section 197 of the Constitution.
14 Section 196 of the Constitution.
15 Section 196(2) and section 196(4)(b) of the Constitution, respectively.
16 Section 196(5) of the Constitution.
17 Section 239 of the Constitution de nes ‘organs of state’.
18 Sections 26 and 29, respectively.
19 Section 26(2) provides that ‘[t]he state must take reasonable legislative and other measures,
within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of this right’.
20 Sections 172(1)(a) and (b), respectively. In Chapter 12 sections 12.3–12.4 the implications
of section 172 for administrative law remedies are discussed.
21 3 of 2000.
22 Section 6(2) PAJA.
23 Section 8(1) PAJA.
24 See Chapter 1 section 1.4 above.
25 For instance, the constitutional prominence of democracy is illustrated in the Preamble;
democracy is also included among the Founding Provisions. More speci cally, section 36
provides that ‘[t]he rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only … to the extent that the
limitation is reasonable and justi able in an open and democratic society’. us,
democracy is a general founding principle that informs all rights.
26 Section 1(d) of the Constitution.
27 Emphasis added.
28 Emphasis added. Section 118 provides the same protection at the provincial level.
29 Matatiele Municipality and Others v President of the RSA and Others (No 2) 2007 (6) SA 477
(CC) para 40.
30 Section 195(1)(e) of the Constitution.
31 See Chapter 3 section 3.7.1 below on the arguments about whether rule-making by the
executive should be recognised as administrative action and thus be subject to
administrative-law control.
32 See Chapter 7 section 7.3 below on the procedural requirements of sections 3 and 4 of
PAJA.
33 2008 (4) SA 367 (CC) paras 74–76.
34 Hoexter, C (2012) Administrative Law in South Africa (2nd ed) 19 (footnotes omitted).
Reprinted by permission of © Juta & Company Ltd.
35 Britannia Beach Estate (Pty) Ltd and Others v Saldanha Bay Municipality 2013 (11) BCLR
1217 (CC) para 16.
36 Section 172(1)(a) of the Constitution (emphasis added).
37 See section 39(3) of the Constitution.
38 Fedsure Life Assurance Ltd and Others v Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan
Council and Others 1999 (1) SA 374 (CC); President of the RSA v SARFU 1999 (4) SA 147
(CC) para 27.
39 See, for instance, Rainbow Civils CC v Minister of Transport and Public Works, Western
Cape and Others (21158/2012) [2013] ZAWCHC 3 (6 February 2013).
40 e section on the separation of powers relies heavily on those sections discussing the
doctrine in Chapters 2 and 3 of the doctoral dissertation by Maree, PJH (2013) Investigating
an Alternative Administrative-Law System in South Africa Unpublished doctoral
dissertation (US).
41 Published in 1748. Although the novelty of Montesquieu’s contribution to separation-of-
powers theory is disputed, he is generally cited as the father of the doctrine.
42 Vile (1998) 13–14.
43 Vile (1998) 14.
44 Vile (1998) 14–17.
45 See Du Plessis, LM (1999) An Introduction to Law (3rd ed) 90; (2002) Re-Interpretation of
Statutes 171.
46 Vile (1998) 20–21.
47 Schedule 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993.
48 irty-four Constitutional Principles were agreed upon during the multiparty negotiations
for the interim Constitution and the nal Constitution’s validity was contingent on
compliance with these principles.
49 1996 (4) SA 744 (CC).
50 Ex Parte Chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly: In Re Certi cation of the Constitution
of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 1996 (4) SA 744 (CC) para 113 (footnotes omitted). CP
refers to Constitutional Principle; NT refers to New Text (i.e. a draft for the nal
Constitution).
51 See 2001 (1) SA 883 (CC) paras 21–22.
52 Heath para 21.
53 Heath para 22.
54 See Chapter 1 section 1.2.1.5.
55 Constitutional Principle VI Schedule 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa
Act 200 of 1993.
56 Gwyn, WB (1965) e Meaning of the Separation of Powers: An Analysis of the Doctrine from
its Origin to the Adoption of the United States Constitution 5. Reprinted by permission of
Tulane University. See Maree (2013) Chapter 2.
57 Gwyn (1965) 127–128 (footnote omitted).
58 Montesquieu (1959) e Spirit of the Laws tr Nugent, T 150. Reprinted by permission of
Tulane University.
59 Montesquieu (1959) 151–152.
60 Montesquieu (1959) e Spirit of the Laws tr Nugent, T 150. Reprinted by permission of
Tulane University.
61 Vile (1998) 399–400.
62 Ackerman (2010) 129. Similarly, Harlow and Rawlings claim that ‘given the present state of
fusion between executive and Parliament, the idea of a constitution held in balance by
triadic division of functions is quite simply untenable’, Harlow, C & Rawlings, R (2009) Law
and Administration (3rd ed) 23.
63 Vile (1998) 400.
64 Section 195(1)(d).
65 Section 195(1)(f).
66 ‘What CP VI requires is that there be a separation of powers between the legislature,
executive and judiciary. It does not prescribe what form that separation should take. We
have previously said that the CPs must not be interpreted with technical rigidity.’
(Certi cation of the Constitution para 113).
67 Certi cation of the Constitution para 111.
68 ‘Within the broad requirement of separation of powers and appropriate checks and
balances, the CA was afforded a large degree of latitude in shaping the independence and
interdependence of government branches. e model adopted re ects the historical
circumstances of our constitutional development.’ (Certi cation of the Constitution para
112).
69 Heath para 24.
70 1998 (3) SA 785 (CC).
71 De Lange v Smuts NO and Others 1998 (3) SA 785 (CC) para 60.
72 See the de nition for ‘administrative action’, section 1 of PAJA and the de nition for ‘organ
of state’, section 239 of the Constitution. Both public and private actors can perform
administrative action and the de nition of administrative action itself bears institutional
and functional aspects.
73 Chapter 9 of the Constitution.
74 See 182(1)(a) of the Constitution.
75 Carr, C (1941) Concerning English Administrative Law 10–11. London: Humphrey Milford,
Oxford University Press. Reprinted by permission of Oxford University Press.
76 Baxter, L (1984) Administrative Law 98–99.
77 Section 1(ii) of PAJA.
78 Section 239(a) of the Constitution.
79 Section 84(1) of the Constitution.
80 Although referred to as an Act, the Public Service Act is not numbered. On MyLexisNexis
the Public Service Act is listed as Act 103 of 1994, but this is erroneous as 103 refers to the
number of the proclamation (see GG 15791 GN 103 of 03.06.1994).
81 Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993. Section 237 of Act 200 of 1993
is still in force.
82 e number twenty-six includes the National Defence Force, but does not count the
Provincial Administrations which are also listed in Schedule 1.
83 Not counting the Offices of the Premier.
84 Note the use of the word ‘state’, which is not de ned by the Constitution. See Currie & De
Waal (2001) 4–6, 228–229. In general, the state refers to a concept broader than executive,
government or administration. In this sense the choice of the word state has far-reaching
implications.
85 Sections 2, 7 and 27(2) of the Constitution.
86 Sections 2 and 172 of the Constitution.
87 Section 36 of the Constitution.
88 36 of 1998.
89 108 of 1997.
90 GN 43 in GG 37817 of 08.07.2014. Since 1994, this department has been known as the
Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, the Department of Water and Environmental
Affairs, and the Department of Water and Sanitation.
91 GN 43 in GG 37817 of 08.07.2014.
92 https://www.dwa.gov.za/about.aspx (accessed 07.08.2020).
93 Department of Water Affairs and Forestry Water Supply and Sanitation Policy, White Paper:
Water – An Indivisible National Asset Cape Town, November 1994. Available at:
https://www.dwa.gov.za/Documents/Policies/WSSP.pdf (accessed 07.08.2020).
94 According to the White Paper:
[g]uidelines are intended to assist decision making whilst standards are enforceable
absolute limits. e rigid application of guidelines or inappropriate standards can
have the opposite effect to that intended. An example would be the closure of ‘sub-
standard’ water supplies which forced communities to revert to sources of even worse
quality.
Given that they are chosen to be the minimum needed to ensure health, the levels of
service presented below should be seen as minimum standards to be applied in
publicly funded schemes unless a relaxation has been speci cally approved.
is does not mean that higher standards cannot be applied.
95 White Paper 14–15.
96 15. ‘is is considered to be the minimum required for direct consumption, for the
preparation of food and for personal hygiene. It is not considered to be adequate for a full,
healthy and productive life which is why it is considered as a minimum.’
97 108 of 1997.
98 Sections 41 and 73(1)(h) of the Water Services Act 108 of 1997, respectively.
99 Section 74(2)(a) of the Water Services Act 108 of 1997.
100 108 of 1997.
101 See GN R509 of 08.06.2001, GN R652 of 20.07.2001 and GN R980 of 19.07.2002.
102 Emphasis added.
103 108 of 1997.
104 See Liebenberg, S (2010) Socio-Economic Rights Adjudication under a Transformative
Constitution 467.
105 Liebenberg (2010) 466; Quinot, G (2010) Substantive Reasoning in Administrative-Law
Adjudication Constitutional Court Review 3:111 at 125–126.
106 Mazibuko para 131. See Quinot (2010) 125–126, 135–136.
107 e Treasury and Statistics South Africa are both listed in Schedule 1 of the Public Service
Act.
108 National Treasury ‘Information about the Ministry’
http://www.treasury.gov.za/ministry/info.aspx (accessed 07.08.2020).
109 See Schedule 1 Public Service Act.
110 Section 216(2) of the Constitution.
111 Section 216(1) of the Constitution.
112 1 of 1999.
113 Section 11(1) PFMA.
114 Section 12(1) PFMA.
115 Section 6(2)(g) PFMA.
116 Section 1 PFMA.
117 56 of 2003.
118 Section 1 of the Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act 56 of 2003.
119 56 of 2003.
120 34 of 1997.
121 Section 2 of the South African Revenue Service Act 34 of 1997 reads as follows: ‘e South
African Revenue Service is hereby established as an organ of state within the public
administration, but as an institution outside the public service.’
122 See section 5 of the South African Revenue Service Act 34 of 1997.
123 Section 6(1) of the South African Revenue Service Act 34 of 1997.
124 1 of 1999. See Schedule 1 to the South African Revenue Service Act 34 of 1997, which lists
the statutes administered by the Commissioner.
125 See section 213 of the Constitution.
126 See also section 2 of the South African Revenue Service Act 34 of 1997 which classi es SARS
as an organ of state within the administration.
127 34 of 1997.
128 34 of 1997.
129 89 of 1991.
130 91 of 1964.
131 e name ‘Eskom’ combines two acronyms, ESCOM (Electricity Supply Commission) and
EVKOM (Elektrisiteitsvoorsieningskommissie).
132 13 of 2001.
133 Section 2 Eskom Conversion Act 13 of 2001.
134 71 of 2008.
135 Section 2 Eskom Conversion Act 13 of 2001. Section 2 refers to section 19(1)(a) of the
Companies Act 61 of 1973 (see the de nition for ‘Companies Act’, section 1 Eskom
Conversion Act 16 of 2001) which has been repealed by the Companies Act 71 of 2008.
136 Section 8 Companies Act 71 of 2008.
137 71 of 2008.
138 e de nitions of national public entity and national government business enterprise,
section 1 of PFMA.
139 1 of 1999.
140 Schedule 2 PFMA.
141 Section 49 PFMA.
142 Section 6(4) Eskom Conversion Act 13 of 2001.
143 Eskom: Powering Your World available at:
<http://www.eskom.co.za/OurCompany/CompanyInformation/Pages/Legislation.aspx>
(accessed 07.08.2020).
144 Section 181 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
145 23 of 1994.
146 23 of 1994.
147 e Public Protector v Mail & Guardian Ltd and Others 2011 (4) SA 420 (SCA) para 9
(footnote omitted).
148 Section 165(2): ‘e courts are independent and subject only to the Constitution and the
law, which they must apply impartially and without fear, favour or prejudice.’ Section
165(4) is couched in language virtually identical to section 181(3): ‘Organs of state, through
legislative and other measures, must assist and protect the courts to ensure the
independence, impartiality, dignity, accessibility and effectiveness of the courts.’ e
Public Protector and judiciary also have a prohibition against interference in common: ‘No
person or organ of state may interfere with the functioning of the courts.’
149 Public Protector Secure in Comfort: Report on an investigation into allegations of
impropriety and unethical conduct relating to the installation and implementation of
security measures by the Department of Public Works at and in respect of the private
residence of President Jacob Zuma at Nkandla in the KwaZulu-Natal province Report No. 25
of 2013/2014.
150 Public Protector Secure in Comfort Report 430.
151 Public Protector Secure in Comfort Report 430–431.
152 Public Protector Secure in Comfort Report 431.
153 PAJA does not exclude the decisions of commissions in general, or of the Public Service
Commission speci cally, in the de nition of administrative action. See Corruption Watch
and Another v Arms Procurement Commission and Others [2019] 4 All SA 53 (GP) where the
Seriti Commission’s report was set aside on the basis of legality and rationality, without
referring to PAJA, however.
154 Proclamation No. 3 of 2018 in GG 41403 of 25.01.2018.
155 See 2.6.1 below.
156 Baxter (1984) 2. Reprinted by permission of © Juta & Company Ltd.
157 However, it is not clear what would constitute a public authority.
Hoexter, C (2007) Administrative Law in South Africa 2. Reprinted by permission of © Juta
158 & Company Ltd.
159 Particular administrative law is also referred to as speci c administrative law.
160 Cf. the dual nature of the executive branch and of the executive function.
161 101 of 1997.
162 See section 1 ‘Minister’ of the Higher Education Act 101 of 1997.
163 Emphasis added.
164 e rst edition of Law and Administration was published in 1984. In 2009 the third edition
was published.
165 Harlow, C & Rawlings, R (2009) Law and Administration (3rd ed) Ch 1.
166 Harlow & Rawlings (2009) 23.
167 Harlow & Rawlings (2009) 38.
168 Harlow & Rawlings (2009) 31.
169 Tomkins, A (2002) In Defence of the Political Constitution Oxford Journal of Legal Studies
22(1):157. By permission of Oxford University Press.
170 101 of 1997.
171 Baxter (1984) 75–76 (footnote omitted). Reprinted by permission of © Juta & Company Ltd.
172 32 of 2000.
173 Section 33 of the Constitution; section 6 of PAJA.
174 See para (a) of the de nition of ‘organ of state’, section 239 of the Constitution.
175 However, the fact that contract law applies in a particular instance does imply that other
elds do not also apply. It may well be that contract law in addition to administrative law is
applicable to a set of facts. See Logbro Properties CC v Bedderson NO and Others 2003 (2) SA
460 (SCA).
176 Note that section 1 of PAJA excludes a number of functions from PAJA’s purview, i.e. PAJA
does not apply to certain functions such as ‘the judicial functions of a judicial officer of a
court referred to in section 166 of the Constitution’. However, the exclusion refers to the
judicial function and not the judiciary as an institution.
177 Hoexter (2012) 8.
178 Hoexter (2012) 8. Reprinted by permission of © Juta & Company Ltd.
179 5 of 2000. is does not mean that the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act 5 of
2000 is the only statute that applies directly to public procurement. Other statutes, such as
the Public Finance Management Act 1 of 1999 and the Broad-Based Black Economic
Empowerment Act 53 of 2003 also regulate public procurement.
180 2007 (3) SA 121 (CC).
181 5 of 2000.
182 See Zondi v MEC for Traditional and Local Government Affairs and Others 2005 (3) SA 589
(CC).
183 58 of 1962.
184 Section 1 of PAJA.
185 ‘Empowering provision’ is de ned by section 1 of PAJA, but this de nition is only relevant
to ‘a natural or juristic person, other than an organ of state’, i.e. an organ of state is not
permitted to act in terms of an empowering provision for the purposes of PAJA to the extent
that the de nition includes sources other than the Constitution, provincial constitutions,
and legislation.
186 Section 1 of PAJA.
187 Hoexter (2012) 52. Reprinted by permission of © Juta & Company Ltd.
188 Hoexter (2012) 32. For examples of practice notes issued under the Public Finance
Management Act 1 of 1999, consult the website of the National Treasury at
<http://www.treasury.gov.za/legislation/pfma/practice%20notes/default.aspx> (accessed
07.08.2020).
Administrative action
3.1 Introduction
3.4 The meaning of administrative action understood within the phases of development of
administrative law
3.8 Conclusion
3.1 Introduction
is chapter introduces the concept of administrative action and
explains how to identify an administrative action among a vast array of
state activities.
Administrative action bears several meanings and its de nition has
changed over time; in fact, it is a concept that continues to develop.
erefore, despite this chapter’s focus on the de nition of
administrative action in the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act,1
the nature of administrative action in general is discussed too.
e importance of administrative action to administrative law
warrants emphasis from the onset. e presence of an administrative
action is decisive for the application of administrative law: section 33
and PAJA only apply to administrative action. erefore, the preliminary
question to any administrative law inquiry would be ‘is there an
administrative action?’ If the answer to this question is ‘no’,
administrative law does not apply; if the answer is ‘yes’, administrative
law applies.
However, one rst has to understand what constitutes
administrative action and how to identify administrative action before
attempting to classify any given act.
is does not resolve the matter, however, but leads to a new inquiry:
what does ‘administrative’ imply? Several factors can assist in
determining whether an action is administrative: the power’s source,
nature and subject matter, whether the power relates to exercising a
public duty, and whether the power can be associated more closely to
policy matters or the implementation of policy.36 In addition, the
Constitution as a whole and the ‘overall constitutional purpose of an
efficient, equitable and ethical public administration’ inform the scope
of administrative action.37 e court concedes that ‘[d]etermining
whether an action should be characterised as the implementation of
legislation or the formulation of policy may be difficult’.38
On the whole, the SARFU judgment entrenches the functional
approach and that characterises the regulation of public power
generally. e shift from an institutional to a functional approach is
re ected in the Constitution’s de nition of ‘organ of state’39 and PAJA’s
de nition of ‘administrative action’ and ‘decision’.40
e order of analysis set out in this list follows the de nition itself and is
also the order followed in the discussion below. However, from a
strategic point of view it would be sensible to start with the last element,
since an action can never qualify as administrative action if it is
expressly excluded by the de nition regardless of whether it complies
with all the other elements. Starting with the exclusions is thus an
efficient way to lter out those actions that cannot be administrative
action under PAJA.
Final decisions
While section 1(i) refers to a ‘decision taken’ thereby
implying finality in the process, the separate definition of
‘decision’ refers to ‘any decision … proposed to be
made, or required to be made’. These phrases may seem
to qualify the finality characteristic of what constitutes a
decision. Something that is still ‘proposed to be made’ is
arguably not final. However, one should remember that
the later element requiring a direct, external legal effect
before the action will constitute administrative action
reinforces the notion of finality as a requirement. A mere
proposal arguably cannot have this requisite effect and
will thus never qualify as administrative action.
One has to follow an interpretation of the definition
that reconciles these ostensibly contradictory parts. This
may be achieved if the phrase ‘proposed to be made’ is
read as only referring to the timing of the decision and
not the substantive conditionality thereof. In other words,
conduct will be included as a decision ‘proposed to be
made’ where it is only a matter of time before the final
decision is taken, but the content of the final decision is
no longer in doubt. Such content (once the decision
becomes operational) will furthermore have to comply
with the effect requirement in order to qualify as
administrative action.
In whatever way one interprets the definition of
‘decision’ it seems that the real work in either including
or excluding preliminary steps in an administrative
process under the definition of administrative action is
done by the effect requirement of the definition (element
(f) in the list above).
Rule-making
One area of administrative action that has resulted in
considerable controversy under PAJA’s definition of
administrative action is that of executive rule-making or
what was referred to as legislative administrative action
at common law.
As we have noted, the making of rules by
administrators (primarily members of the executive) in
terms of a legislative mandate has long been recognised
as subject to some administrative law controls.87 The
typical example is the making of regulations aimed at
implementing a particular statute. Other examples
include the issuing of practice notes and circulars by
various public bodies. The distinctive feature of these
types of public actions is that they are not aimed at one
particular instance of state administration, but are aimed
at governing generally a category of cases. The
application of these actions is thus general rather than
specific.
Under PAJA the question has emerged whether the
act of rule-making can be viewed as ‘a decision of an
administrative nature’. The definition of ‘decision’ in PAJA
does not seem to cater specifically for rule-making and it
is not clear that rule-making can even be viewed as ‘a
decision’. The question also arises whether rule-making
is not rather of a legislative nature as opposed to an
administrative nature.
The case that was set to bring clarity on this matter,
Minister of Health and Another NO v New Clicks South
Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others,88 unfortunately failed to
provide a definitive answer. In this matter the Minister
issued regulations on a pricing system for the sale of
medicine in terms of section 22G of the Medicines and
Related Substances Act.89 The relevant part of the
empowering provision stated that:
Finally, and perhaps the most general of all the factors listed by Langa
CJ in Chirwa, the public interest in the relevant decision has long been
a key factor in identifying public power. Public interest in the
functioning of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, formally a private
company, was determinative in the common-law cases that held
actions of that body to be public in nature111 as well as under PAJA.112
Under PAJA in Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union113 Plasket J held
that:
the pre-eminence of the public interest in the proper administration of prisons
and the attainment of the purposes speci ed in … the Correctional Services Act
all strengthen my view that the powers that are sought to be reviewed in this
matter are public powers as envisaged by … PAJA
In Greys Marine Hout Bay (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Public
Works and Others126 Nugent JA held that a literal interpretation of this
element cannot be accepted. Instead, the court ruled, the fth and sixth
elements were:
probably intended rather to convey that administrative action is action that has
the capacity to affect legal rights, the two quali cations in tandem serving to
emphasise that administrative action impacts directly and immediately on
individuals.
is interpretation has been endorsed by the Constitutional Court.127 In
applying this approach in Greys Marine the court held that the
respondent’s decision to lease a portion of state land to a private
company was administrative action since it had ‘immediate and direct
legal consequences’ for the lessee.128 Not much is left of the ‘adverse’
part of this element of the de nition following the judgment. In the later
judgment in Minister of Home Affairs and Others v Scalabrini Centre
and Others129 Nugent JA noted that the adverse impact element may
in uence ‘the actionability of the decision’, but not the nature of the
decision as administrative action.
e generous interpretation of the de nition’s impact requirement
has been adopted to hold, for example, that the decision not to appoint
a person to a public service position amounted to administrative
action130 and the same for a decision to appoint a person to such a
position.131 It is thus clear that any impact on rights, whether negative or
positive, will satisfy this element. e judgment in Wessels v Minister for
Justice and Constitutional Development and Others132 is especially
noteworthy since it expressly endorsed a determination approach to the
impact element of the de nition.133 In terms of such an approach, the
determination of rights is enough to satisfy the impact element, it is not
required that rights be taken away, that is a deprivation approach.
e judgment in Joseph and Others v City of Johannesburg and
Others134 has also opened up the potentially restrictive in uence of the
de nition’s impact requirement. In this matter, the City terminated the
electricity supply to an apartment building in which the applicant was a
tenant. Electricity was supplied in bulk to the building so that only the
landlord had a contract with the City for the supply of electricity. e
tenants in turn only had their rental contracts with the landlord, which
included the supply of electricity, but had no contractual relationship
with the City. When the landlord failed to pay the City, it terminated
supply. In challenging the termination decision of the City, the tenants
argued that the decision amounted to administrative action, which
attracted the procedural fairness obligations of PAJA towards them. e
City argued in response that the decision did not amount to
administrative action vis-à-vis the tenants inter alia because the
decision did not impact on any rights of the tenants. e court rejected
this argument, dealing with it as much under the de nition’s impact
elements as the impact requirement under section 3(1).135 e court
held that the City had a general duty ‘to provide municipal services’
owing from a collection of constitutional and statutory provisions.136 It
followed that:
when City Power supplied electricity to [the apartment building], it did so in
ful lment of the constitutional and statutory duties of local government to
provide basic municipal services to all persons living in its jurisdiction. When the
applicants received electricity, they did so by virtue of their corresponding public-
law right to receive this basic municipal service.137
3.8 Conclusion
Despite all the technicalities involved in the statutory de nition in
section 1(i) of PAJA, administrative action can broadly be understood as
decisions ostensibly taken under empowering provisions in ful lling
the function of state administration and aimed at consequences outside
of the administration.
Administrative action has become the key concept in administrative
law under the Constitution and PAJA. Cora Hoexter has noted that the
strong conceptualism of this approach, especially under PAJA, is
regrettable since it diverts attention away from substantive questions
about administrative justice.157 In a sense PAJA’s approach has
continued the formalism that characterised our common-law
administrative law in the form of the classi cation of functions. We are
still spending a disproportionate amount of time trying to gure out
whether we have administrative action rather than asking what the
standards of administrative justice may require of public conduct. e
development of the concept of legality, as a basis for judicial scrutiny
over all forms of public conduct regardless of whether it quali es as
administrative action or not, can be seen as a response to the difficulties
introduced by the ‘cumbersome’ de nition of administrative action in
PAJA. e dangers of this situation are of course the development of
parallel systems of law – one under legality and another under section
33 of the Constitution – with different requirements that are ostensibly
aimed at achieving the same purposes and regulating and facilitating
the same public conduct.
FURTHER READING
• Craig, PP ‘What is Public Power’ in Corder, H & Maluwa, T (Eds) (1997)
Administrative Justice in Southern Africa Cape Town: Dept of Public Law UCT
25
• Hoexter, C ‘From Chirwa to Gcaba: An Administrative Lawyer’s View’ in Kidd, M
& Hoctor, S (Eds) (2010) Stella Iuris: Celebrating 100 Years of Teaching Law in
Pietermaritzburg Cape Town: Juta 47
• Hoexter, C (2012) Administrative Law in South Africa (2nd ed) Cape Town: Juta
171–194
• Konstant, A (2015) Administrative action, the principle of legality and
deference – The case of Minister of Defence and Military Veterans v Motau,
Constitutional Court Review VII:68
• Penfold, G (2019) Substantive reasoning and the concept of ‘administrative
action’ SALJ 136(1):84
• Pfaff, R & Schneider, H (2001) The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act
from a German Perspective SAJHR 17:59
• Quinot, G (2008) Administrative Law Cases and Materials Cape Town: Juta 24–
25, 41, 177–178
• Thornton, L (1999) The Constitutional Right to Just Administrative Action – Are
Political Parties Bound? SAJHR 15(3):351
• Williams, RC (2011) The Concept of a ‘Decision’ as the Threshold Requirement
for Judicial Review in Terms of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act PER
14:230
• Wolf, L (2017) In search of a definition for administrative action SAJHR
33(2):314
• Wolf, L (2018) Implications of the ‘direct, external legal effect’ of administrative
action for its purported validity SALJ 135(4):678
22. Exemptions.—
(a) a manager; or
(b) any category of persons,
When PAJA was drafted, the possibility of creating a more coherent and
uniform system of internal remedies was considered. However, it was
left to the discretion of the Minister of Justice in the Act to establish an
advisory council that may advise the Minister on ‘any improvements
that might be made in respect of internal complaints procedures,
internal administrative appeals’.16 No steps have yet been taken under
this section to establish such an advisory council or to reform the
fragmented South African internal remedies landscape.
PAJA does contain one important provision that strengthens the role of
internal controls. Section 7(2) of PAJA defers the jurisdiction of the
courts to review administrative action until all internal remedies have
been exhausted. We shall return to this rule below when we consider
judicial review.22 For the moment it can be noted that this is a strong
signal that our law favours reliance on internal controls prior to judicial
controls.
It is not difficult to see why one would want to adopt such a position.
Internal controls are mostly much more informal than judicial
proceedings, can potentially be accessed much quicker and
consequently with lower costs, and can address a wider range of issues
regarding the administrative action.23 Since internal controls function
within the relevant administration, there is much less concern about
the institutional ability of the internal control mechanisms to deal with
the technical and often specialised substance of the relevant
administrative action compared to courts that often lack such
expertise.24 For example, under the Genetically Modi ed Organisms
Act,25 the Executive Council for Genetically Modi ed Organisms must
‘decide whether to approve an application … for the use of facilities to
conduct activities in respect of genetically modi ed organisms’.26 Any
person that feels aggrieved by a decision of the Council, say the refusal
to approve an application, may lodge an appeal against such decision to
an appeal board appointed by the relevant Minister consisting of
persons who ‘have expert knowledge of the matter on appeal and who
are otherwise suitable to make a decision on the appeal concerned’.27 In
the case of such an appeal, the appeal board will be in just as good a
position to judge the merits of the application as the Council, whereas a
court that may be faced with a challenge against the Council’s decision
will mostly not have the necessary expertise to judge ‘activities in
respect of genetically modi ed organisms’. In the absence of any
coherence in the South African system of internal controls, these
advantages of course depend largely on how the particular mechanism
is set up in the legislation and (as with all regulatory mechanisms) how
well it is implemented. A common mechanism in South African law is
an appeal to the relevant Minister or MEC who is responsible for the
department within which the administrative action was taken. e
advantages of internal mechanisms set out above will evidently be less
in such a case given that Ministers will not necessarily be more
accessible than courts or even have higher levels of expertise in the
technical matter at issue.
ese are clearly wide powers involving signi cant oversight over
administrative action. An important hallmark of the Public Service
Commission is its proactive role in promoting good administration as
opposed to simply investigating administrative failures and attempting
to rectify such failures. In ful lling this function, the Public Service
Commission has thus published various reports and guidelines to
promote good decision-making, such as its Template for Developing
Guidelines on Public Participation and its Code of Conduct for Public
Servants. While these documents are not sources of administrative law,
they do clearly promote decision-making that adheres to administrative
law. ey can thus be viewed as mechanisms in bringing rules of
administrative law to bear on the conduct of the public service.
ere is some uncertainty regarding the Public Service
Commission’s authority over members of the executive. is stems
mainly from the speci c reference to ‘public service’ within its mandate.
Conceptually, the term ‘public service’ excludes members of the
executive.73 To the extent that the Public Service Commission’s mandate
relates to conduct of the public service, it thus does not have authority
over conduct of members of the executive. However, this view should be
carefully considered. Insofar as the Public Service Commission has a
constitutional mandate to monitor the functioning of the public service,
conduct of members of the executive in steering the public service may
quite likely fall within the Commission’s mandate. For example, in
terms of section 196(4)(d) of the Constitution, the Commission has the
power ‘to give directions aimed at ensuring that personnel procedures
relating to recruitment, transfers, promotions and dismissals comply
with the values and principles set out in section 195’. Members of the
executive are quite often involved in these personnel decisions and
conduct would be subject to the powers of the Commission.
4.5 Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in
administrative law
An interesting question that has emerged in recent years is what role
alternative dispute resolution processes (ADR) can play as a
mechanism to regulate administrative action. In many other areas of
law, ADR has become a major route to resolving disputes and thus
enforcing legal rules. ADR typically involves processes of negotiation,
mediation and/or arbitration to resolve a dispute.
ere are some statutory and regulatory indications that ADR may
be used in addressing administrative-law disputes. Section 6(4) of the
Public Protector Act74 provides that the Public Protector shall have the
power:
(b) to endeavour, in his or her sole discretion, to resolve any dispute or rectify any
act or omission by … (i) mediation, conciliation or negotiation.
On one reading of the judgment, it may only be authority for the narrow
point that claims expressly brought under PAJA cannot be submitted to
ADR processes, which is what happened on the facts in this case. Such a
result would not be particularly problematic given that PAJA expressly
provides for judicial review. ADR procedures are clearly not judicial
processes and would thus not qualify as the type of fora contemplated
by PAJA. However, the judge’s remarks towards the end of the paragraph
quoted above and particularly in the last sentence, suggests a broader
view, namely that since administrative-law disputes are by implication
constitutional-law disputes (which is beyond doubt) they will never be
amenable to resolution through ADR processes. Such an interpretation
of the judgment clearly has a much further impact and would effectively
remove ADR altogether as a mechanism to regulate administrative law.
ADR, ‘privatisation of disputes’ and constitutional
matters
Consider the court’s statement in ISO Leisure OR Tambo
quoted above that ‘the privatisation of disputes involving
constitutional matters is anathema to our Constitution’.
This ostensible principle underlies the court’s rejection of
recourse to ADR in the administrative-law dispute at
issue in that case. Does this reasoning hold true in all
areas of law? Think of a dispute between a private
landlord and tenant where, say, discrimination is at issue
and the lease agreement includes an ADR clause. Would
the court’s reasoning forbid these parties from
submitting their dispute to arbitration under their ADR
clause, because equality is inevitably a constitutional
matter? If we accept ADR in this context, how do we
draw a line between such cases and administrative-law
disputes, assuming that we can find a basis for the ADR
in the latter cases, for example where there is an
agreement between the parties?
Perhaps the resistance to ADR in administrative-law
disputes signals the courts’ adherence to the dominance
of judicial review as a mechanism of regulating
administrative action. Such resistance may, however, be
to the detriment of developing an integrated system of
regulation where different types of regulation, including
ADR, can play complementary roles.
FURTHER READING
• Creyke, R (2006) Administrative Justice: Beyond the Courtroom Door Acta
Juridica 257
• Govender, K ‘Administrative Appeals Tribunals’ in Bennett, TW & Corder, H (Eds)
(1993) Administrative Law Reform Cape Town: Juta
• Hoexter, C (2000) The Future of Judicial Review in South African Administrative
Law SALJ 117(3):484
• Theophilopoulos, C and De Matos Ala, C (2019) An Analysis of the Public
Protector’s Investigatory and Decision-Making Procedural Powers PER / PELJ
22
• Venter, R (2017) The Executive, the Public Protector and the Legislature: The
Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe TSAR 176
1 See the White Paper on Transforming Public Service Delivery (Batho Pele ‘People First’
White Paper on Transforming Public Service Delivery), Dept. of Public Service and
Administration 18 Sept 1997, Notice 1459 of 1997 in GG 18340 of 01.10.1997.
2 Department of Public Service and Administration RSA (2013) Public Service Integrity
Management Framework.
3 See Chapter 2 section 2.6.1 above and Harlow, C & Rawlings, R (2009) Law and
Administration (3rd ed) Chapter 1.
4 See Chapter 8 below.
5 Hoexter, C (2000) e Future of Judicial Review in South African Administrative Law SALJ
117(3):484 at 485–488; Wade, HWR & Forsyth, CF (2014) Administrative Law (11th ed) 4, 8.
e rst book in South Africa to deal exclusively with administrative law, was Rose Innes,
LA (1963) Judicial Review of Administrative Tribunals in South Africa.
6 103 of 1977.
7 45 of 2002.
8 Examples could be found in sections 8, 11, 19, 28, 29 and 41 of the Internal Security Act 74
of 1982; section 5B of the Public Safety Act 3 of 1953; section 103 of the Defence Act 44 of
1957.
9 2000 (3) SA 936 (CC).
10 Dawood para 47.
11 Dawood para 48.
12 2005 (3) SA 589 (CC).
13 3 of 2000.
14 1 of 1999.
15 97 of 1990.
16 PAJA section 10(2)(a)(ii).
17 Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.
18 Tribunals Amalgamation Act 2015 (No 60, 2015).
19 Creyke, R (2006) Administrative Justice: Beyond the Courtroom Door Acta Juridica 257 at
262.
20 ese were the AAT, the Refugee Review Tribunal, the Migration Review Tribunal, the
Social Security Appeals Tribunal and the Veterans’ Review Board. Creyke (2006) 262.
21 Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 section 33.
22 Section 4.6.2.3 below.
23 Koyabe and Others v Minister for Home Affairs and Others (Lawyers for Human Rights as
Amicus Curiae) 2010 (4) SA 327 (CC) para 35.
24 See Koyabe para 37.
25 15 of 1997.
26 Section 5(1)(b) and 5(1)(b)(i).
27 Section 19(2)(a).
28 Chapter 2 section 2.5.3.5.
29 Also note the discussion of the Public Protector in Chapter 2 section 2.5.3.5 above.
30 Constitution section 182(1).
31 23 of 1994.
32 For example, the Executive Members’ Ethics Act 82 of 1998, the Prevention and Combating
of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004, the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000,
the Protected Disclosures Act 26 of 2000 and the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of
Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000.
33 2016 (3) SA 580 (CC) para 71.
34 See, for example, Public Protector Report No. 3 of 2015/6 reporting on contracting
irregularities at PRASA; Report No. 5 of 2015/6 on irregularities in lease and other
procurement decisions at the South African Post Office; Report No. 13 of 2016/2017 on an
irregular procurement in appointing a security tender by the Kagisano-Molopo Local
Municipality; Report No. 5 of 2017/18 on irregular payment of professional and legal fees by
the North West Department of Local Government and Traditional Affairs; Report No. 8 of
2018/19 on the irregular appointment of a service provider to render academic consultancy
services to the University of Limpopo; Report No. 116 of 2019/20 on irregular tenders for
rehabilitation of streets by the Greater Letaba Local Municipality.
35 See Report No. 1 of 2016/17 on disconnection of electricity services by Eskom.
36 See Report No. 8 of 2016/17 on the Department of Home Affairs’ failures in nalising a
citizenship application; Report No. 32 of 2017/18 on the Department of Home Affairs’
undue delay to nalise and the improper adjudication of applications for naturalisation.
37 See Report No. 14 of 2017/18 on failures by SARS to consider representations and
objections before levying additional taxes.
38 See Report No. 9 of 2017/18 on the North West Department of Education and Sports
Development’s failures in dealing with the death of a learner while playing rugby for a
public school; Report No. 39 of 2018/19 on the Eastern Cape Department of Rural
Development and Agrarian Reform’s failures pertaining to the placement of learners.
39 See Report No. 11 of 2014/15 on the City of Johannesburg’s failures in respect of providing
emergency housing; Report No. 6 of 2014/15 on failures to timeously deal with social
assistance appeals.
40 Economic Freedom Fighters para 52 (footnotes omitted).
41 23 of 1994.
42 Economic Freedom Fighters para 55.
43 23 of 1994.
44 Public Protector Act 23 of 1994, section 6(4)(b).
45 Para 64.
46 Para 65.
47 Para 67.
48 Para 71.
49 2017 (2) SA 597 (GP).
50 2017 (6) SA 198 (GP).
51 2018 JDR 0190 (GP).
52 2018 (3) SA 380 (SCA).
53 Para 37 (footnotes omitted).
54 President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v South African Rugby Football Union
and Others 2000 (1) SA 1 (CC) para 141. President of RSA v SARFU para 141.
55 See Chapter 2 section 3.6.1.
56 Constitution section 184.
57 40 of 2013.
58 South African Human Rights Commission Act 40 of 2013 section 13(3)(a).
59 25 of 2004.
60 Public Audit Act 25 of 2004 section 20(2).
61 25 of 2004.
62 1 of 1999.
63 56 of 2003.
64 25 of 2004.
65 Public Audit Amendment Act 5 of 2018 amended the Public Audit Act 25 of 2004.
66 25 of 2004.
67 Public Audit Act 25 of 2004 section 5A.
68 Public Audit Act 25 of 2004 section 5B.
69 See Auditor-General of South Africa (2014). Consolidated General Report on National and
Provincial Audit Outcomes PFMA 2013–14 at 30, 57–65 where it is reported that 72% of
national and provincial entities audited had ndings of material non-compliance with
legislation.
70 (19259/2018) [2020] ZAWCHC 50 (8 June 2020).
71 Para 17.
72 Chapter 2 section 2.2.5.
73 See Chapter 2 section 2.2.
74 23 of 1994.
75 56 of 2003.
76 Regulation 21(e) GN 868 in GG 27636 of 30.05.2005.
77 Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 section 107(5).
78 2011 (4) SA 642 (GSJ).
79 ISO Leisure OR Tambo para 68.
Judicial regulation of
administrative action
5.4 Deference
is reasoning was con rmed by the Constitutional Court in Bel Porto
School Governing Body and Others v Premier, Western Cape and
Another.8 Subsequently, in Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of
Environmental Affairs and Others9 the Constitutional Court adopted the
same reasoning in respect of the broader requirement of
reasonableness in section 33 of the Constitution where O’Regan J stated
for the court:
Although the review functions of the court now have a substantive as well as a
procedural ingredient, the distinction between appeals and reviews continues to
be signi cant. e court should take care not to usurp the functions of
administrative agencies.
For the better part of the twentieth century this remained the basis for
judicial review in South Africa. It was of course a fairly weak basis given
that the courts’ reviewing powers were restricted to narrow procedural
grounds and limited to cases where a serious decisional defect or
illegality was shown to be present. A further constraint on judicial
power in this regard was the fact that the legislature, which had superior
power to the courts in terms of the doctrine of parliamentary
supremacy, could simply oust the courts’ reviewing jurisdiction and
thus insulate particular administrative action from judicial scrutiny.13
With the advent of constitutional democracy in South Africa in 1994
the basis for judicial review of administrative action also changed
radically. Rather than arising from the inherent (and self-proclaimed)
common-law jurisdiction of the courts, judicial review was now
founded expressly on fundamental rights protected in the supreme
Constitution.
In its judgment in Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of SA14
the Constitutional Court con rmed this shift to a single, constitutional
foundation for judicial review of administrative action. It also follows
from this judgment that all instances of judicial review of administrative
action automatically amount to constitutional matters, since they all
involve the enforcement of the Constitution regardless of the speci c
arguments presented in the particular review. In what has become one
of the most important dicta in South African constitutional law
pertaining to the nature of the constitutional law system, the court
stated:
ere are not two systems of law, each dealing with the same subject-matter, each
having similar requirements, each operating in its own eld with its own highest
Court. ere is only one system of law. It is shaped by the Constitution which is
the supreme law, and all law, including the common law, derives its force from
the Constitution and is subject to constitutional control.
Whilst there is no bright line between public and private law, administrative law,
which forms the core of public law, occupies a special place in our jurisprudence.
It is an incident of the separation of powers under which courts regulate and
control the exercise of public power by the other branches of government. It is
built on constitutional principles which de ne the authority of each branch of
government, their inter-relationship and the boundaries between them. Prior to
the coming into force of the interim Constitution, the common law was ‘the main
crucible’ for the development of these principles of constitutional law. e
interim Constitution which came into force in April 1994 was a legal watershed. It
shifted constitutionalism, and with it all aspects of public law, from the realm of
common law to the prescripts of a written constitution which is the supreme law.
at is not to say that the principles of common law have ceased to be material to
the development of public law. ese well-established principles will continue to
inform the content of administrative law and other aspects of public law, and will
contribute to their future development. But there has been a fundamental
change. Courts no longer have to claim space and push boundaries to nd means
of controlling public power. at control is vested in them under the Constitution,
which de nes the role of the courts, their powers in relation to other arms of
government and the constraints subject to which public power has to be
exercised. Whereas previously constitutional law formed part of and was
developed consistently with the common law, the roles have been reversed. e
written Constitution articulates and gives effect to the governing principles of
constitutional law. Even if the common law constitutional principles continue to
have application in matters not expressly dealt with by the Constitution (and that
need not be decided in this case), the Constitution is the supreme law and the
common law, insofar as it has any application, must be developed consistently
with it and subject to constitutional control.15
Reasonableness 6(2)(f)(ii)
6(2)(h)
6(2)(e)(vi)
5.4 Deference
e relationship between courts exercising their oversight function and
the administration ful lling its constitutional mandate in taking
administrative action has become a major point of debate in South
African law. While this debate is inherent to the separation of powers, as
we noted in Chapter 2 above, and has thus always been part of the
discipline of administrative law, the current debate has gained
prominence following the in uential article of Cora Hoexter published
in 2000.59
In her article Hoexter called for debate on the development of a
theory of deference. is she understood to mean developing principles
that can guide courts in intervention and non-intervention when
scrutinising administrative action.60 In what has become a classic
formulation of the issues at stake, Hoexter stated:
the sort of deference we should be aspiring to consists of a judicial willingness to
appreciate the legitimate and constitutionally-ordained province of
administrative agencies; to admit the expertise of those agencies in policy-laden
or polycentric issues; to accord their interpretations of fact and law due respect;
and to be sensitive in general to the interests legitimately pursued by
administrative bodies and the practical and nancial constraints under which
they operate. is type of deference is perfectly consistent with a concern for
individual rights and a refusal to tolerate corruption and maladministration. It
ought to be shaped not by an unwillingness to scrutinize administrative action,
but by a careful weighing up of the need for – and the consequences of – judicial
intervention.61
Deference is thus about respect for the role of another branch of state
within the separation of powers. It is partly based on the constitutional
mandate of various public entities: it is simply not the function of the
courts to administer and they should not attempt to do so via their
oversight of the administration. However, it is also clear that deference
is about the ability of courts to judge certain types of decisions made by
administrators. As the SCA noted in Logbro Properties some decisions
are of such a nature that it is very difficult or even impossible for a court,
with limited expertise and ability to investigate matters, to judge on
substance. ese concerns are to a large extent accentuated by the
increasing substantive dimension of review, which we noted in section
5.2 above when we looked at the distinction between review and
appeal. e more the courts engage in matters of substance as part of
their oversight function over administrative action, the bigger the
concerns of constitutional mandate and institutional capacity become.
FURTHER READING
• Boonzaier, L (2018) A Decision to Undo SALJ 135(4):642–677
• De Beer, MN (2018) A New Role for the Principle of Legality in Administrative
Law: State Information Technology Agency Soc Ltd v Gijima Holdings (Pty) Ltd
SALJ 135(4):613–630
• Hoexter, C (2000) The Future of Judicial Review in South African Administrative
Law SALJ 117(3):484
• Maree, PJH & Quinot, G (2016) A Decade and a Half of Deference (Part I)
(2016) Journal of South African Law 268–280
• Maree, PJH & Quinot, G (2016) A Decade and a Half of Deference (Part II)
(2016) Journal of South African Law 447–466
• Plasket, C (2002) The Exhaustion of Internal Remedies and Section 7(2) of the
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 SALJ 119(1):50
Plasket, C (2018) Judicial Review, Administrative Power and Deference: A View
•
from the Bench SALJ 135(3):502
• Quinot, G & Van der Sijde, E (2019) Opening at the Close: Clarity from the
Constitutional Court on the Legal Cause of Action and Regulatory Framework
for an Organ of State Seeking to Review Its Own Decisions? Journal of South
African Law 324–336
• Saunders, C ‘Appeal or Review: The Experience of Administrative Appeals in
Australia’ in Bennett, TW & Corder, H (Eds) (1993) Administrative Law Reform
Cape Town: Juta
• Wallis, M (2018) Do We Need Deference? SAJEI 1(1):97
1 Hoexter, C (2000) e Future of Judicial Review in South African Administrative Law SALJ
117(3):484. Reprinted by permission of © Juta & Company Ltd.
2 Carephone (Pty) Ltd v Marcus NO and Others 1999 (3) SA 304 (LAC) para 34.
3 For example, under section 28 of the Planning Profession Act 36 of 2002 either an aggrieved
person or the South African Council for Planners may appeal against a decision of the
Appeal Board created under that Act to the High Court.
4 We will see what reasonableness entails in Chapter 8 below and note there the extent to
which the merits of the particular action are relevant in scrutinising reasonableness.
5 We will explore mistakes in Chapter 6 below and see that administrators can err in respect
of their mandate either by an incorrect interpretation of the law involved or by basing their
decisions on the wrong facts.
6 is was in terms of the interim wording of section 33 of the Constitution pending the
enactment of PAJA as set out in item 23(2)(b) of Schedule 6 to the Constitution.
7 1999 (3) SA 304 (LAC) paras 30–32, 36.
8 2002 (3) SA 265 (CC) para 89.
9 2004 (4) SA 490 (CC) para 45.
10 1903 TS 111.
11 1912 AD 642.
12 Johannesburg Consolidated Investment Co para 115.
13 See Chapter 4 paragraph 4.2.
14 Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of South Africa and Another: In Re: Ex Parte
Application of the President of the Republic of South Africa and Others 2000 (2) SA 674 (CC).
15 Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of SA paras 44–45.
16 Bato Star Fishing para 25.
17 Fedsure Life Assurance Ltd and Others v Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan
Council and Others 1999 (1) SA 374 (CC) paras 56–59.
18 President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v South African Rugby Football Union
and Others 2000 (1) SA 1 (CC) (‘SARFU’) para 148.
19 e most recent example of this trend in favour of relying on legality review at the expense
of PAJA is seen in the developing body of law on state self-reviews. See in this regard State
Information Technology Agency SOC Ltd v Gijima Holdings (Pty) Ltd 2018 (2) SA 23 (CC),
subsequently affirmed in Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality v Asla Construction (Pty)
Limited 2019 (4) SA 331 (CC) and BW Bright Water Way Props (Pty) Ltd v Eastern Cape
Development Corporation 2019 (6) SA 443 (ECG). ese cases involve decisions that clearly
qualify as administrative actions under PAJA and would, for this reason, ordinarily be
reviewed under that legislation.
20 Bato Star Fishing para 25.
21 Hoexter, C (2012) Administrative Law in South Africa (2nd ed) 131.
22 66 of 1995.
23 Sidumo and Another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd and Others 2008 (2) SA 24 (CC).
24 See Zondi v MEC for Traditional and Local Government Affairs and Others 2005 (3) SA 589
(CC).
25 Buffalo City para 112.
26 Bato Star Fishing para 25 (emphasis added).
27 See Du Plessis, LM (2002) Re-interpretation of Statutes.
28 See Chapter 2 section 2.6.
29 Minister of Health and Another NO v New Clicks South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others
(Treatment Action Campaign and Another as Amici Curiae) 2006 (2) SA 311 (CC) paras 96
(per Chaskalson CJ) and 436–437 (per Ngcobo J) concurred at paras 586 (Sachs J), 842
(Langa DCJ), 846 (O’Regan J), 851 (Van der Westhuizen J).
30 New Clicks para 437 (references omitted).
31 See, for example, Electronic Media Network Limited and Others v e.tv (Pty) Limited and
Others 2017 (9) BCLR 1108 (CC) where Mogoeng CJ, writing for the majority of the
Constitutional Court, concluded that an amendment to a broadcasting policy introduced
by the Minister of Communications under the Electronic Communications Act 36 of 2005
was reviewable under the principle of legality. In reaching this conclusion the court did
not, however, engage in the mandated threshold enquiry whether the decision in question
quali ed as administrative action but proceeded on the narrow basis that all policy
formulation by the executive arm is automatically governed by the legality principle (para
26). is approach is inconsistent with judicial precedent, which calls for a more a nuanced
approach to determining the nature and character of public power (see, for example,
Minister of Defence and Military Veterans v Motau and Others 2014 (5) SA 69 (CC) paras 37–
44).
32 For example, in Malema and Another v Chairman of the National Council of Provinces and
Another 2015 (4) SA 145 (WCC) the court stated at para 47: ‘e parties were not in
agreement as to whether rst respondent’s rulings could be challenged under the
provisions of PAJA. is issue raises two constituent questions: rstly, whether rst
respondent’s rulings constituted “administrative action” as de ned in sec 1 of PAJA or
whether they were excluded from this de nition by virtue of the exemption provided in the
Act for “the legislative functions of Parliament”; secondly, it raises the question of whether
rst respondent’s rulings had “a direct external legal effect”. In the view that I take of this
matter, however, I consider that it is unnecessary to determine the applicability of PAJA
since it was common cause that rst respondent’s rulings were, at the very least, subject to
review under the principle of legality’ (references omitted).
33 2018 (2) SA 23 (CC).
34 See Chapter 11 on standing in self-review cases.
35 See Boonzaier, L (2018) A Decision to Undo SALJ 135(4):642; De Beer, MN (2018) A New
Role for the Principle of Legality in Administrative Law: State Information Technology
Agency Soc Ltd v Gijima Holdings (Pty) Ltd SALJ 135(4):613–630; Quinot, G & Van der Sijde,
E (2019) Opening at the Close: Clarity From the Constitutional Court on the Legal Cause of
Action and Regulatory Framework for an Organ of State Seeking to Review its Own
Decisions? TSAR 324.
36 2019 (4) SA 331 (CC).
37 Para 112.
38 eron en Andere v Ring van Wellington van die NG Sendingkerk in Suid-Afrika en Andere
1976 (2) SA 1 (A); Turner v Jockey Club of South Africa 1974 (3) SA 633 (A).
39 2006 (3) SA 73 (T) para 25.
40 2009 (4) SA 22 (SCA).
41 Klein paras 14, 24, 27.
42 Transman para 24.
43 National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), Solidarity, and United Association of South Africa
(UASA).
44 AMCU para 72.
45 AMCU para 78.
46 AMCU para 78.
47 Koyabe para 36.
48 2014 (5) SA 138 (CC) paras 127–133.
49 PAJA section 7(2)(a).
50 Road Accident Fund v Duma and ree Similar Cases 2013 (6) SA 9 (SCA) para 25.
51 Reed and Others v Master of the High Court of South Africa and Others [2005] 2 All SA 429
(E) para 25; Hoexter (2012) 540–541.
52 Koyabe para 44.
53 Reed paras 20–25; Koyabe para 44.
54 Koyabe para 44 where the court mentioned lack of availability and ineffectiveness of an
internal remedy as factors relevant to determining whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ for
the purposes of section 7(2)(c) of PAJA are present.
55 Nichol and Another v Registrar of Pension Funds and Others 2008 (1) SA 383 (SCA) para 16;
Earthlife Africa (Cape Town) v Director-General: Department of Environmental Affairs and
Tourism and Another 2005 (3) SA 156 (C) para 33.
56 Nichol para 18; Koyabe para 45.
57 Nichol para 24.
58 Koyabe para 47.
59 Hoexter (2000) 484. See the Pause for re ection box in section 4.6 above.
60 Hoexter (2000) 500.
61 Hoexter, C (2000) e Future of Judicial Review in South African Administrative Law SALJ
117(3):501–502 (footnotes omitted). Reprinted by permission of © Juta & Company Ltd.
62 2003 (2) SA 460 (SCA).
63 Bato Star Fishing para 48.
64 See Corder, H (2004) Without Deference, With Respect: A Response to Justice O’Regan
SALJ 121(2):438 at 441.
65 Allan, TRS (2006) Human Rights and Judicial Review: A Critique of ‘Due Deference’
Cambridge Law Journal 65(3):671.
66 Plasket, C (2018) Judicial Review, Administrative Power and Deference: A View from the
Bench SALJ 135(3):502.
67 Plasket (2018) at 502.
68 Plasket (2018) at 502.
69 Wallis, M (2018) Do We Need Deference? SAJEI 1(1):97.
70 Wallis (2018) at 107.
71 Wallis (2018) at 107.
72 Wallis (2018) at 97.
73 Davis, DM (2006) To Defer and then When? Administrative Law and Constitutional
Democracy Acta Juridica 23; Davis, DM (2006) Adjudicating the Socio-Economic Rights in
the South African Constitution: Towards ‘Deference Lite’? South African Journal on Human
Rights 22(2):301.
Lawfulness
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Authorisation
6.2.1 What?
6.2.1.1 Reason, purpose, motive
6.2.1.2 Omission
6.2.1.3 Changing a decision
6.2.2 Who?
6.2.2.1 Identity of the authorised administrator
6.2.2.2 Authorised bodies
6.2.2.3 Delegation
6.2.2.4 Influence and advice
6.2.3 How?
6.2.3.1 Prescribed procedures
6.2.3.2 Conditions
6.3 Mistakes
6.3.1 Error of law
6.3.2 Mistake of fact
6.4 Conclusion
6.1 Introduction
A key feature of administrative law is that it deals with actions taken in
terms of some form of authorisation. In fact, as we noted in Chapter 3,
administrative action is de ned by reference to the existence of an
empowering provision, that is a source in terms of which the action was
purportedly taken.1 is characteristic of administrative law re ects an
important element of the rule of law, which we have also noted is a key
aspect of administrative law.2 In Fedsure Life Assurance Ltd and Others v
Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan Council and Others3
the Constitutional Court recognised this important aspect of the rule of
law as follows:
[I]t is a fundamental principle of the rule of law, recognised widely, that the
exercise of public power is only legitimate where lawful. e rule of law – to the
extent at least that it expresses this principle of legality – is generally understood
to be a fundamental principle of constitutional law.
6.2 Authorisation
e rst requirement of lawfulness is the basic one of authorisation. For
every action that an administrator takes, there must be a valid
authorisation in an empowering provision. In the absence of such
authorisation the administrative action will be unlawful. e
Constitutional Court con rmed this basic notion of authorisation in
Fedsure5 when it stated:
It seems central to the conception of our constitutional order that the Legislature
and Executive in every sphere are constrained by the principle that they may
exercise no power and perform no function beyond that conferred upon them by
law.
6.2.1 What?
e what question is perhaps the most fundamental of the three
questions since the answer tells us exactly what it is that an
administrator can do under the relevant authorisation. Essentially, if an
administrator is authorised to do A, he or she must do A and not B. If his
or her action amounts to B it will be unlawful. Section 6(2)(f)(i) of PAJA
is the primary provision capturing this element of lawfulness.
is basic notion is well illustrated by the judgment in Minister of
Education v Harris.9 In this matter the Minister of Education was
empowered by section 3(4) of the National Education Policy Act10 to
‘determine national policy’ for the education system, including
‘national policy for … the admission of students to education
institutions which shall include the determination of the age of
admission to schools’. e Minister, acting in terms of this authorisation,
published a notice stating that a learner must be admitted to Grade 1 in
the year he or she turns seven and may not be admitted at a younger
age. e court held that this notice amounted to a binding legal rule,
which is something different from ‘national policy’. It followed that the
Minister’s action was unlawful, because he attempted to do something
(make a rule) while something else (make a policy) was authorised.
6.2.1.2 Omission
We have noted in Chapter 3 that an omission can constitute
administrative action.27 However, as we also noted, not all omissions
will constitute administrative action. An omission will only be an
administrative action if it amounts to a failure to act, that is when there
is a duty on the administrator to act and the administrator does not act.
It should be immediately evident that the recognition of administrative
action and the lawfulness requirement attaching to such administrative
action are closely tied in such a scenario. It is the administrator’s failure
in light of the duty to act that results in the omission being
administrative action, while it is that very same failure in light of the
duty to act that constitutes the unlawfulness of the action.
is is nothing more than a particular form of the what question of
lawfulness. Under these scenarios the administrator is mandated
(indeed obliged) to do something (act), but does something else (does
not act). e omission and the empowering provision do not align,
making the omission both an administrative action and an unlawful
one at that.
e key question in such cases is when the omission will turn into
an administrative action and be unlawful. at is, when will the
administrator’s supine attitude turn into a legally relevant action under
administrative law. PAJA provides the answer in sections 6(2)(g) and
6(3). e former contains a ground of review for failures to take
decisions and the latter provides the time frame in terms of which non-
action will become a failure to act. e easy case is where the relevant
empowering provision contains an express timeline within which the
action must be taken. Once that timeline had lapsed without any action
by the administrator there is a failure to act and hence an unlawful
administrative action. However, much more difficult is the case where
the empowering provision contains no express timeline in terms of
which the administrator must act. In such a case section 6(3)(a) of PAJA
states that a person can institute proceedings after a reasonable time
had lapsed. It will thus be up to a court to judge whether the time that
had lapsed is indeed unreasonably long thus resulting in the
administrator’s non-action being a failure to act.
92 If at any time SARS is satis ed that an assessment does not re ect the correct
application of a tax Act to the prejudice of SARS or the scus, SARS must
make an additional assessment to correct the prejudice.
98 (1) SARS may, despite the fact that no objection has been lodged or appeal
noted, withdraw an assessment which-
(a) was issued to the incorrect taxpayer;
(b) was issued in respect of the incorrect tax period;
(c) was issued as a result of an incorrect payment allocation; or
(d) in respect of which the Commissioner is satis ed that-
(i) it was based on-
(aa) an undisputed factual error by the taxpayer in a return; or
(bb) a processing error by SARS; or
(cc) a return fraudulently submitted by a person not authorised by
the taxpayer;
(ii) it imposes an unintended tax debt in respect of an amount that the
taxpayer should not have been taxed on;
(iii) the recovery of the tax debt under the assessment would produce
an anomalous or inequitable result;
(iv) there is no other remedy available to the taxpayer; and
(v) it is in the interest of the good management of the tax system
150 (1) If a ‘dispute’ between SARS and the person aggrieved by an assessment
or ‘decision’ is ‘settled’ under this Part, SARS may, despite anything to
the contrary contained in a tax Act, alter the assessment or ‘decision’ to
give effect to the ‘settlement’.
In its judgment in MEC for Health, Eastern Cape and Another v Kirland
Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Eye and Lazer Institute38 the Constitutional
Court con rmed the basic position that an administrator is bound to an
administrative action once taken and cannot vary or ignore such action
without approaching a court for an order to set the action aside. In this
matter the administrator had approved an application to establish a
private hospital, but attempted later to reverse that decision, taking the
view that the original approval was defective and that the administrator
could subsequently ‘withdraw’ it and further refuse to implement it. e
applicant challenged the administrator’s conduct and sought an order
that the original decision was still valid and the administrator bound to
it. e court explained the position as follows:
When government errs by issuing a defective decision, the subject affected by it is
entitled to proper notice, and to be afforded a proper hearing, on whether the
decision should be set aside. Government should not be allowed to take
shortcuts. Generally, this means that government must apply formally to set aside
the decision. Once the subject has relied on a decision, government cannot,
barring speci c statutory authority, simply ignore what it has done. e decision,
despite being defective, may have consequences that make it undesirable or even
impossible to set it aside. at demands a proper process, in which all factors for
and against are properly weighed.39
6.2.2 Who?
e second major aspect of the authorisation that one can interrogate
as part of the lawfulness inquiry relates to the administrator that is
authorised to act: the who question.
6.2.2.1 Identity of the authorised administrator
In most cases the empowering provision will indicate speci cally which
administrator is given a particular power. e way in which this is done
varies between empowering provisions. A statutory provision may thus
identify the particular office holder or the entity that must take the
action. Alternatively, the empowering provision may identify the
quali cations or characteristics of the authorised administrator without
stating speci cally the identity of the administrator.
In New Clicks the Constitutional Court held that in ‘each case what will
be required will depend on the interpretation of the empowering
legislation and relevant regulations, prescribing how a commission
should function’.54 In the absence of clear instructions in the
empowering provisions that prescribe the procedure for the entity to
follow, that entity will be able to formulate its own procedure, including
quorum rules stating how many members must be present for the entity
to take valid decisions, implying that not all members must always be
present. e key is the provisions of the relevant empowering provision
and how it contemplates the body will function.55
6.2.2.3 Delegation
Empowering provisions often identify the particular administrator that
must take a decision as we have noted above. is will typically be the
chief administrator in a given organ of state. One thus nds that
empowering provisions routinely authorise the relevant Minister or
MEC to take particular decisions. At the same time one does not in
practice expect the Minister or the MEC to take all decisions him- or
herself. For one reason, it is simply not practically feasible to think that
one person at the head of an organ of state can personally take all
decisions. ere is accordingly a need to recognise that authorised
administrators can get someone else to be involved in taking a decision.
e primary way in which the rules of administrative law provide for
this reality is through delegation.
6.2.3 How?
e third basic question that we can ask in a lawfulness inquiry is the
how question. e issue here is whether the administrator followed the
process set out in the empowering provision for taking the relevant
decision. e focus is on how the decision must be taken in terms of the
empowering provision.
PAJA requires in section 6(2)(b) that all mandatory and material
procedures and conditions must be followed in taking administrative
action. e how question thus relates to both purely procedural
prescripts and substantive preconditions that must be met in order for
the administrator to exercise the power lawfully.
In common law, these statutory requirements were referred to as
jurisdictional facts. ey were viewed as facts that had to exist for the
administrator to have jurisdiction to act. Under the Constitution, this
terminology is no longer accurate. is is mainly because the
justi cation for testing the lawfulness of an administrator’s conduct,
including testing for compliance with prescribed procedures and
conditions, is premised on section 33(1) of the Constitution. It is no
longer based on a common-law notion of adherence to the will of a
sovereign parliament as expressed in the empowering provision. e
Constitutional Court explained this shift in our law as follows in MEC
for Health, Eastern Cape and Another v Kirland Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a
Eye and Lazer Institute:65
Jurisdictional facts refer broadly to preconditions or conditions precedent that
must exist before the exercise of power, and the procedures to be followed when
exercising that power. It is true that we sometimes refer to lawfulness
requirements as ‘jurisdictional facts’. But that derives from terminology used in a
very different, and now defunct, context (namely where all errors, if they were to
be capable of being reviewed at all, had to be construed as affecting the
functionary’s ‘jurisdiction’). In our post-constitutional administrative law, there is
no need to nd that an administrator lacks jurisdiction whenever she fails to
comply with the preconditions for lawfully exercising her powers. She acts, but
she acts wrongly, and her decision is capable of being set aside by proper process
of law.
If the appeal committee noti ed the appellant and the Council of the
date and time of the appeal hearing only ve days before such hearing,
the subsequent decision of the appeal committee could be challenged
on lawfulness grounds for a failure to follow section 57(4) of the Nursing
Act.67 e use of the word ‘must’ in the section is a good indication that
the procedure set out in that section is mandatory, following normal
rules of statutory interpretation.
Compliance with procedures in empowering provisions should not,
however, be judged formalistically. e courts have held that a
deviation from a prescribed procedure will not necessarily result in the
administrative action being unlawful. e question that must be
answered in every case is whether the administrator complied
sufficiently with the prescribed procedure to achieve the purpose of the
particular provision.68 In Allpay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty)
Ltd and Others v Chief Executive Officer, South African Social Security
Agency and Others69 the Constitutional Court stated:
e proper approach is to establish, factually, whether an irregularity occurred.
en the irregularity must be legally evaluated to determine whether it amounts
to a ground of review under PAJA. is legal evaluation must, where appropriate,
take into account the materiality of any deviance from legal requirements, by
linking the question of compliance to the purpose of the provision, before
concluding that a review ground under PAJA has been established …
Assessing the materiality of compliance with legal requirements in our
administrative law is, fortunately, an exercise unencumbered by excessive
formality. It was not always so. Formal distinctions were drawn between
‘mandatory’ or ‘peremptory’ provisions on the one hand and ‘directory’ ones on
the other, the former needing strict compliance on pain of non-validity, and the
latter only substantial compliance or even non-compliance. at strict
mechanical approach has been discarded. Although a number of factors need to
be considered in this kind of enquiry, the central element is to link the question of
compliance to the purpose of the provision.
Distinguishing between PAJA section 6(2)(b) and
section 6(2)(c)
Problems with procedure in taking administrative action
can be challenged under either section 6(2)(b) or
section 6(2)(c) of PAJA. However, the one deals with
procedure as a matter of lawfulness (6(2)(b)) while the
other deals with procedure as a matter of procedural
fairness (6(2)(c)). The key difference in practice between
these different grounds of review is the origin of the
particular procedure at issue. Procedure as a matter of
lawfulness and as set out in this chapter, focuses on the
procedural requirements set out in the empowering
provision. It is thus the procedure that forms part of the
authorisation that is relevant from a lawfulness
perspective. Procedure as a matter of procedural
fairness is mostly premised on the procedural
requirements set out in PAJA itself in sections 3 and 4.
This is dealt with in Chapter 7 below. There is also a
conceptual difference in testing for compliance with
these different procedural aspects of administrative
decision-making. As a matter of lawfulness the
procedural inquiry is whether there was compliance with
the authorisation, that is, did the administrator act within
the limits of his or her powers? As a matter of procedural
fairness the procedural inquiry focuses not on
compliance or the limits of power, but on the fairness of
decision-making. The latter thus allows for much more
variability and contextual influence in the inquiry than
the former.
However, there is not a watertight distinction
between these different procedural dimensions of an
administrative action. It is quite possible to find that the
exact same facts may support arguments on both these
grounds of review. For example, giving only five days’
notice of the time and date of an appeal hearing under
section 57 of the Nursing Act,70 noted above, may render
the appeal decision unlawful on the basis of non-
compliance with section 57(4). At the same time, five
days’ notice may not be ‘adequate notice of the nature
and purpose of the proposed administrative action’ and
may result in a party not receiving ‘a reasonable
opportunity to make representations’ as required by
section 3(2)(b) of PAJA as a matter of procedural
fairness.
Conversely, compliance with the procedure set out in
the empowering provision, that is satisfying the
lawfulness inquiry, may simultaneously satisfy the
requirements of procedural fairness under section 3(5)
for example, which allows for a fair but different
procedure mandated by an empowering provision to be
followed instead of the standard procedures set out in
section 3.71
6.2.3.2 Conditions
Apart from pure procedures, the empowering provision may also
prescribe (substantive) conditions for the exercise of a particular power.
At its most basic, this takes the following form: in the case of A, the
administrator may do B, where A is the condition and B the
administrative action. e administrator’s power to take action B is thus
dependent on the existence of A.
Conditions can broadly be categorised as either subjective or
objective.72 Examples of both types are found in the following provision
from the South African Police Service Act:73
17D(2) If, during the course of an investigation by the Directorate, evidence of any
other crime is detected and the Head of the Directorate considers it in the
interests of justice, or in the public interest, he or she may extend the investigation
so as to include any offence which he or she suspects to be connected with the
subject of the investigation.
In this example, the Head of the Directorate of Priority Crime
Investigation may extend an investigation if two distinct sets of
conditions are met. e rst condition is objective: evidence of any
other crime is detected. e existence of this condition can be
objectively determined, that is, the condition simply refers to a fact. e
second set of conditions is subjective: the Head of the Directorate must
consider it in the interest of justice or in the public interest to take the
action. is condition does not refer to a fact that can be objectively
determined. It rather refers to the subjective view of a particular person.
Note that this second condition is not that it must in fact be in the
interest of justice or in the public interest to extend the investigation.
e condition is that the Head must consider it so, that is, his or her
subjective view is the condition.
e establishment of compliance with objective conditions are of
course fairly unproblematic. One can simply investigate whether the
relevant facts pertaining to the condition exist. If they do not exist, the
condition is not met and the administrator cannot lawfully take the
action.
Subjective conditions are much more difficult to test. Since it is the
subjective view of a particular person that is the basis of the condition,
it would seem that the objective existence of the matter on which a view
must be formed is irrelevant. In the example above, it is thus ostensibly
irrelevant, at least from a lawfulness perspective, whether extending an
investigation is indeed in the public interest or not. e only relevant
question is whether the Head formed the view that it is. As a result, it is
thus fairly easy for an administrator to simply assert that he or she did
indeed form the view, thereby ful lling the condition. In the old classic
case of South African Defence and Aid Fund and Another v Minister of
Justice74 the court held that in the case of a subjective condition a court
may only interfere if ‘it is shown that the repository of the power, in
deciding that the pre-requisite fact or state of affairs existed, acted mala
de or from ulterior motive or failed to apply his mind to the matter’.75
Today, scrutiny of subjective conditions is less problematic than
under common law, because of the constitutional requirement that
administrative action must also be reasonable. While, following the
approach set out in the South African Defence and Aid Fund case above,
subjective conditions cannot be signi cantly scrutinised as a matter of
lawfulness, an administrator’s subjective conclusion under the
condition can be much more closely assessed as a matter of
reasonableness.76 In Walele v City of Cape Town and Others77 the
Constitutional Court thus stated:
In the past, when reasonableness was not taken as a self-standing ground for
review, the City’s ipse dixit could have been adequate. But that is no longer the
position in our law. More is now required if the decision-maker’s opinion is
challenged on the basis that the subjective precondition did not exist. e
decision-maker must now show that the subjective opinion it relied on for
exercising power was based on reasonable grounds.
6.3 Mistakes
e nal aspect of lawfulness to consider is that of mistake. An
administrator’s action may be unlawful if he or she makes a mistake in
either law or fact pertaining to his or her authorisation. It is particularly
important to remember that we are not talking about a mistake in
relation to the content of the administrator’s decision. In other words,
we are not saying that the administrator took the wrong administrative
action. We are still focusing on the lawfulness of the administrative
action, which means that we are still only focusing on the authorisation
of the action. e mistake we are talking about here is thus purely in
relation to the authorisation.
6.4 Conclusion
Lawfulness is one of the most basic requirements of administrative
justice. It is directly linked to the overarching constitutional principle of
legality, premised on the rule of law. At its simplest this notion requires
all public action to be based on a valid source of power. Beyond simply
requiring that administrative action must be based on authorisation,
that is an empowering provision, lawfulness further requires that the
action be aligned to the empowering provision. e action should fall
within the four corners of the empowering provision.
PAJA does not contain a consolidated statement of what lawfulness
in terms of section 33(1) of the Constitution entails. e Act only
contains various grounds of review in section 6 that can be labelled as
lawfulness grounds of review. ese are listed in Table 6.1 below. From
these negatively stated grounds of review, one can extrapolate the rules
of lawfulness in administrative justice.
Table 6.1 Lawfulness grounds of review
6(2)(b) Mandatory and material conditions and procedures in the empowering provision
must be followed
6(2)(d) The decision must be taken on a correct interpretation of the applicable law
6(2)(e)(iii) All relevant considerations must be taken into account and all irrelevant
considerations must be ignored in taking the action
6(2)(e)(iv) The administrator must take the decision him- or herself and not follow the
prescripts of another
6(2)(g) – read with A decision must be taken when there is a duty to decide
section 6(3)
FURTHER READING
• Forsyth, C & Dring, E ‘The Final Frontier: The Emergence of Material Error of
Fact as a Ground for Judicial Review’ in Forsyth, C, Elliott, M, Jhaveri, S,
Ramsden, M & Scully-Hill, A (Eds) (2010) Effective Judicial Review: A
Cornerstone of Good Governance 245
• Hoexter, C (1994) Administrative Justice and Dishonesty SALJ 111:700
• Pretorius, DM (2005) The Origins of the Functus Officio Doctrine, with Specific
Reference to its Application in Administrative Law SALJ 122:832
MELANIE MURCOTT
7.1 Introduction
7.5 When is procedural fairness demanded of exercises of public power that do not amount to
administrative action?
7.6 When is procedural fairness demanded of exercises of private power?
7.1 Introduction
Most of us can probably conjure a childhood memory of complaining to
a parent that his or her decision was ‘unfair’. More recently, you might
have watched a sports match where you threw your hands up in the air
at the ‘unfairness’ of a referee or umpire’s decision. Perhaps, in these
situations, you were upset by not being properly heard by a parent, or
by a referee that appeared to favour one team over another. All of us
probably have an intuitive sense of what fairness entails, but are there
concrete factors or actions that render decision-making fair or unfair?
When it comes to administrative law, at common law before 1994,
decisions were considered fair if they complied with the ‘rules of
natural justice’, usually expressed in their Latin format as audi alteram
partem (hear the other side) and nemo judex in sua causa esse debet (no
one should be a judge in his or her own cause/interest). ese rules of
natural justice largely resemble what we would expect of decisions in
other contexts, including on the sports eld or in the household. ey
essentially ensured that people adversely affected by decisions would
know about the decision and be able to participate in that decision,
which entailed prior notice of the decision and an opportunity to state
their case and in uence the outcome of the decision to an unbiased
decision-maker. For example, in Heatherdale Farms (Pty) Ltd and
Others v Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Another1 Colman J held that
before the Deputy Minister could con scate the poultry or eggs of
companies engaged in large-scale chicken breeding, the companies had
to be given an adequate opportunity to make representations to the
Deputy Minister. As the companies concerned were not afforded such
an opportunity, the Deputy Minister’s conduct was found to be
inconsistent with the maxim audi alteram partem and Colman J set
aside the Deputy Minister’s order of con scation in respect of the
companies’ poultry and eggs. In Barnard v Jockey Club of South Africa2
a decision of a domestic tribunal of the Jockey Club of South Africa to
convict a racehorse trainer of contravening club rules was set aside by
the court because a member of the tribunal was a partner of the rm of
attorneys representing the club, such that he had a nancial interest in
the proceedings, which created a suspicion in the mind of a reasonable
person that he was not impartial or that there was a likelihood of bias.
e requirements of fairness as demanded by the rules of natural
justice remain in place post-apartheid, as they are protected by the right
to just administrative action in section 33 of the Constitution and the
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act3 (PAJA). However, they have
been supplemented, particularly in relation to administrative action
affecting the public.4 Further the requirements of fairness are now more
generously applied than under the common law. At common law the
rules of procedural fairness were applied in a restrictive manner with
reliance on the ‘classi cation of functions’.5 Put very simplistically, the
rule against bias was applied in judicial or quasi-judicial contexts, and
not to other types of administrative conduct (that is, of a legislative or
‘purely administrative’ nature), while the maxim audi alteram partem
was applied principally to cases where someone was deprived of a right,
rather than cases concerning ‘mere applicants’, and also only to judicial
or quasi-judicial conduct, in the absence of a legislative provision that
demanded the application of the maxim to other types of administrative
conduct. Under the Constitution and PAJA,6 in contrast, the
requirements of fairness apply to all administrative action, and
sometimes even apply when the exercise of public power does not
amount to administrative action, in terms of the principle of legality.7
Post-apartheid, the imposition of procedural fairness standards is
particularly important because these standards serve to uphold
principles and values that underpin our Constitution: accountability,
responsiveness and openness.8 Moreover, our new constitutional
dispensation envisages a participatory democracy,9 in which ‘[t]he right
to speak and be listened to is part of the right to be a citizen in the full
sense of the word … and the right to have a voice on public affairs is
constitutive of dignity’.10
However, the problem with procedural fairness standards is that
they take time and resources to uphold and ful l, possibly to the extent
of causing ‘administrative paralysis’ at the expense of efficiency.11
Particularly in relation to decisions affecting large numbers of people, it
is not difficult to imagine that it will be burdensome for administrative
officials to give prior notice of an intended decision, listen to and
consider representations, then give notice of the decision taken and
notice of opportunities to appeal every time they take a decision. For
this reason, as discussed below, what fairness demands will depend on
the circumstances of each case.12
is chapter spells out in detail what it means for administrative
action to be fair under section 33 of the Constitution and in terms of
sections 3 and 4 of PAJA. PAJA gives greater detail on what is required
from an administrator in the area of procedural fairness: rst in section
3, in regard to administrative action affecting an individual (that is,
decisions with a speci c impact), then, in section 4, where
administrative action affects the public at large (that is, decisions with a
general impact). We then consider the rule against bias in more detail.
We discuss the development of the principle of legality such that it
demands that public power that is not administrative action may also,
in certain situations, be subject to at least some of the demands of
fairness. Lastly, the circumstances in which the exercise of private
power may be subject to procedural fairness standards are brie y
considered.
Any person
Administrative action affects ‘any person’, and attracts the fairness
standards imposed by section 3 of PAJA, rst when it has a speci c
impact, rather than a more general impact on the public at large, or a
group or class of the public. For instance, a decision of an official of the
Department of Social Development to reject an application for a
disability grant affects the person who applied for the grant personally,
and has a speci c impact on him, rather than a more general impact on
the public at large.
Bear in mind that ‘person’ includes juristic persons so that a
decision by the Department of Basic Education to reduce the subsidy of
a speci c public school, for example, would still fall under section 3.
e impact is still speci c to the ‘person’, here the school, even though
there may be many individuals (learners, teachers, and so on) that form
part of the school. However, it may at times be difficult to draw the line
between an impact on a person and an impact on a group as we shall
see when we look at the eld of application of section 4 of PAJA dealing
with procedural fairness in cases where the administrative action
impacts on the public.
Materiality
At rst glance, section 3 suggests that only administrative action that
has a ‘material’ or signi cant impact on a person must comply with its
procedural requirements: it seems to qualify or limit its application to
conduct that ‘materially and adversely affects … any person’ (that is, a
‘materiality quali cation’).18 You will recall that the de nition of
‘administrative action’ in section 1 of PAJA does not require that
decisions must have a material impact in order to fall within its scope.
Instead, section 1 requires that the impact of a decision must be adverse
and sufficiently nal. Section 3’s ‘materiality quali cation’ is potentially
signi cant, as it could be interpreted so as to result in a substantial
narrowing of the application of procedural fairness standards to a
limited type of administrative decision-making. Although a narrowing
of the application of procedural fairness standards would help reduce
the burden imposed on the state administration that these standards
entail, such a narrowing could also run counter to the constitutional
values of accountability, responsiveness and openness applicable to the
public administration. Fortunately, the Constitutional Court has
interpreted the ‘materiality quali cation’ in section 3 of PAJA to mean
that administrative action will attract the standards of procedural
fairness unless it has a ‘trivial’ affect.19 e court took the view that
rather than limit the application of section 3 to a narrow class of
administrative action, administrators could tailor the content of
procedural fairness depending on the circumstances of the case.
Rights
e administrative action to which the standards of procedural fairness
apply according to section 3(1) seems a wider category of conduct than
the category ‘administrative action’ as de ned in section 1 of PAJA. You
will recall that ‘administrative action’ as de ned in section 1 is only
action that affects rights.20 Rights include common-law rights, such as
rights attaching to individuals under the law of property, contractual
rights, as well as constitutional rights.21
In Joseph, the Constitutional Court further extended the meaning of
‘rights’ under section 3(1) of PAJA by holding that the term includes
‘legal entitlements that have their basis in the constitutional and
statutory obligations of government’.22 e City had disconnected the
electricity supply to an apartment building after the owner failed to pay
his account. It was common cause that the City followed a fair
procedure vis-à-vis the owner before taking the decision, including
appropriate notices to him of arrears and the proposed disconnection.
e residents of the building had no contractual relationship with the
City for the supply of electricity since supply was in bulk to the building,
rather than to the individual apartments. e resident tenants only had
a contractual relationship with the owner for the supply of electricity,
who in turn had a contractual relationship with the City. e question
was consequently whether the City’s decision to disconnect the power
supply impacted on any of the rights of the tenants so that the City was
obliged to act in a procedurally fair manner vis-à-vis the tenants in
terms of section 3(1) of PAJA before taking the decision to disconnect
their electricity. e court held that the tenants had no contractual
rights vis-à-vis the City that were impacted by the decision to
disconnect. e court also refrained from deciding whether any of the
tenants’ fundamental rights (like the right to housing or dignity) were
infringed by the decision. Rather, the court found that the City had
constitutional and legislative obligations to provide basic municipal
services to everyone living in its jurisdiction, which included electricity
supply.23 e tenants had a ‘correlative public law right’ to receive such
services.24 e City’s decision to disconnect the electricity supply
impacted adversely on these rights, which resulted in section 3 of PAJA
applying to the decision vis-à-vis the tenants. Joseph thus extends the
scope of application of procedural fairness under section 3 of PAJA well
beyond the traditional category of rights.
Curiously, unlike section 1, section 3(1) of PAJA determines that
procedural fairness applies to conduct that affects rights or legitimate
expectations.
Legitimate expectations
A legitimate expectation is something less than a right.25 It entails the
expectation of a fair procedure being followed or of a certain outcome
being afforded the expectant party. e expectation must have a
reasonable basis, having arisen from an undertaking given by an
administrator or an administrator’s long-standing practice.26 Legitimate
expectations were rst recognised under the common law in
Administrator, Transvaal and Others v Traub and Others,27 where
doctors recommended for particular posts were refused appointment
by an administrator, but claimed to have a legitimate expectation that
they would be appointed or at the very least that they would be given a
hearing before being refused appointment. e doctors argued that
their expectation arose from the administrator’s long-standing past
practice of appointing all the doctors recommended for the particular
post. e court recognised the doctors’ legitimate expectation and
afforded the expectation procedural protection by ordering that given
their expectation the doctors were entitled to be heard if the
administrator wished to depart from its long-standing past practice.
In our constitutional era, the requirements for a legitimate
expectation were enumerated in National Director of Public
Prosecutions v Phillips and Others28 as follows:
• First, the expectation must be ‘reasonable’;
• Second, the representation giving rise to the expectation must be:
◆ ‘clear, unambiguous and devoid of relevant quali cation’,
◆ ‘induced by the decision-maker’, and
◆ ‘one which it was competent and lawful for the decision-maker
to make’.29
Flexibility
Importantly, section 3(2)(a) tells us that the requirements of procedural
fairness contained in section 3 must be applied in a exible manner. It
provides that ‘a fair administrative procedure depends on the
circumstances of each case’. Flexibility is crucial, as it allows a context-
sensitive application of the requirements of procedural fairness on a
case-by-case basis. In some situations, for example where there is an
urgent matter that needs to be dealt with, such as a decision to erect
temporary shelters for people affected by a ood, it might be fair to give
one day’s notice of a decision, whereas if the matter is not urgent, such
as the approval of a shopping centre development, fairness would
invariably demand much more notice. In complex decisions, involving
a vast number of documents, fairness could require that legal
representation be permitted at a hearing, whereas for everyday issues
that confront the ordinary person on the street, such as the
disconnection of water or electricity, fairness might simply require
opportunity to send written representations in the form of a letter or
notice to an official.
e exibility inherent in section 3 has been interpreted to mean
that although section 3(2)(b) appears to impose ‘mandatory’ or
‘minimum’ requirements of procedural fairness, whilst section 3(3)
appears to impose ‘discretionary’ or ‘additional’ requirements of
procedural fairness, the courts will have a discretion as to whether or
not to enforce even section 3(2)(b)’s requirements in appropriate
cases.43 In other words, a court may nd that an administrator’s conduct
is procedurally fair even if it does not comply with all the requirements
of section 3(2)(b). However, administrators would be ill-advised to
overlook the requirements of section 3(2)(b) in the normal course, and
run the risk of the court nding in subsequent litigation that theirs was
a case in which all of the section 3(2)(b) procedures ought to have been
followed. Instead, if and to the extent an administrator believes that a
departure from the requirements of section 3(2) is appropriate, he or
she should expressly invoke section 3(4), which reinforces the idea of
exibility by allowing administrators to depart from the requirements of
section 3(2)(b) where it is reasonable and justi able to do so, taking into
account all relevant factors. ese factors include the likely effect or
impact of the administrative action, the urgency of the matter, and the
need to promote an efficient administration. We will now turn to
consider what procedures section 3(2)(b) and 3(3) envisage, in order for
administrative action to be fair.
Notice of any right of review or internal appeal and notice of the right to
request reasons
e nal requirements of procedural fairness in section 3(2)(b) of PAJA
demand that decision-makers must inform affected persons that they
are entitled to ask for reasons for the decision in terms of section 5 of
PAJA, and of any internal or special statutory review procedures or any
internal appeal procedures available in respect of the decision.
Decision-makers do not need to inform affected persons that they can
pursue a judicial review in terms of section 6 of PAJA. If some other
review or internal appeal is available, however, the decision-maker
ought to advise affected persons of how long they have to pursue the
review or appeal, where and with whom the review or appeal should be
pursued, and any other formal requirements of the review or appeal.
Note that these requirements do not expressly oblige the
administrator to provide reasons for the administrative action. e only
obligation under this section is that the affected person be informed of
his or her right to request reasons. As we shall see in Chapter 9, dealing
with the right to reasons, this obligation to inform a person of his or her
right to request reasons is an important element of PAJA’s reason-giving
regime, under which a person has a right to request reasons rather than
a right to reasons.
How to change an exam date
The exam date for administrative law is recorded in the
exam schedule published on the university’s intranet as
date X. Your lecturer wants to change the exam date to
date Y. She mentions this in passing to a handful of
students who she bumps into in the library, but doesn’t
notify the student body more generally, or make inquiries
about whether date Y would be suitable for the students.
The lecturer then changes the exam date from date X to
date Y, but does not publish the new exam date on the
university’s intranet. Instead, your lecturer discusses the
new date with a student that she believes to be one of
the strongest in the class. On date Y, most of the
students are absent from the exam. The lecturer’s
decision is clearly unfair, but what is it about her
decision that renders it unfair? For instance, in order to
be fair, ought the lecturer to have given prior notice of
her proposed decision to the students, ought she to have
engaged with representations on the new date, and then
given notice of the decision taken? Did the lecturer
demonstrate a preference for a particular student?
In essence there are thus three main types of procedural routes that an
administrator may adopt under section 3 of PAJA:
1. e administrator may follow the procedure set out in section 3(2)
supplemented by the procedural steps in section 3(3) where the
circumstances require, or
2. the administrator may depart from the procedure in section 3(2) if
the circumstances allow in terms of section 3(4) taking into account
the factors listed in section 3(4)(b), or
3. the administrator may follow a ‘fair but different’ procedure
provided for in an empowering provision.
The public
Section 1 provides that for purposes of section 4, ‘public’ includes any
group or class of the public. It is argued that administrative action
affects a group or class of the public when its impact is ‘equal and
impersonal’, rather than merely speci c.58 In addition, administrative
action that is ‘general’ and has a signi cant public effect will arguably
trigger the procedures in section 4, even if the group or class of the
public affected is not clearly identi able or cannot give input itself.59 It
has been held that section 4 allows public interest groups and
individuals to make representations on decisions in such situations,
that is, where the people who might actually be affected are not able to
give input or are not identi able.60 is is because:
[w]here administrative action is proposed which will adversely affect the public,
there may often be an extant group of people who will be immediately affected
but often the proposed action will also have future effects on people who, at the
time of the decision, are not yet in contemplation as persons who will be
adversely affected. Often these ‘future victims’ of the proposed decision will be
the more numerous group. While their identity will not be known (they
themselves might not yet know that their circumstances will ever bring them
within the purview of the proposed decision), we are fortunate to live in a society
where there are many organisations which concern themselves with public
causes and with the welfare of others and where there are altruistic individuals
with the knowledge, experience and skill to make useful representations on
matters affecting the public.61
Like section 3, section 4 envisages that what is fair will depend on the
circumstances of the case (that is, section 4 will apply in a exible
fashion, as spelt out in relation to section 3 above). To this end, section
4 affords administrators a number of procedures from which to choose
when their decisions materially and adversely affect the public in a
general sense. Section 1 excludes from the de nition of ‘administrative
action’ a decision or failure to take a decision in terms of section 4(1).62
e result of this exclusion is that the administrator’s choice as to which
section 4 procedure to use when his or her decisions materially and
adversely affect the public will not be reviewable in terms of section 6 of
PAJA. An administrator’s choice may, however, be reviewable in terms
of the constitutional principle of legality, which regulates the exercise of
all public power. Administrators may also depart from the procedures
provided for in section 4(1), (2) and (3) where it is reasonable and
justi able to do so, taking into account factors such as efficiency, good
governance and the urgency of the intended administrative action.63 In
the next section, we will consider what each of the procedures in
section 4 entails.
A public inquiry
A public inquiry is a formal hearing, in a public forum, where an
administrator or a panel of administrators receives representations
(either in writing or verbally) in relation to a decision that will have a
general impact.
In terms of section 4(2), when an administrator has chosen to hold a
public inquiry in order to ensure the fairness of a decision with a
general impact that he or she wishes to take, the administrator must
rst decide whether to conduct the public inquiry him- or herself, or
appoint a panel of suitably quali ed persons to conduct the inquiry.
en, the administrator must invite the public to attend and participate
in the inquiry about the decision. e invitation must contain sufficient
information so as to enable those affected to participate meaningfully,
and enable them to ask for more information if necessary. In addition,
the invitation must be publicised effectively, so as to be brought to the
attention of those affected, including by means of internet, radio,
television, posters, newspapers, etc. At the inquiry, people must be
given a hearing (that is, a proper opportunity to participate and be
heard), having regard to matters such as their level of literacy, the
languages they speak, and the possible need for assistance. After the
inquiry, it is necessary for a written report to be compiled, recording the
reasons for any decision to be taken or recommended. e report must
be published in the Gazette and conveyed to those members of the
public affected by a decision to be taken or recommended.
FURTHER READING
• Hoexter, C (2011) ‘The Rule of Law and the Principle of Legality in South
African Administrative Law Today’ in Carnelley, M & Hoctor, S (Eds) (2011)
Law, Order and Liberty, Essays in Honor of Tony Mathews Scotsville: University
of KwaZulu Natal Press 55
• Hoexter, C (2012) Administrative Law in South Africa (2nd ed) Cape Town:
Juta, specifically Chapter 7: Procedural Fairness
• Murcott, M (2013) Procedural Fairness as a Component of Legality: Is a
Reconciliation between Albutt and Masetlha Possible? SALJ 130:260
• Quinot, G (2010) Substantive Reasoning in Administrative-Law Adjudication
Constitutional Court Review 3:111
MICHAEL KIDD
8.1 Introduction
8.4 Rationality
8.4.1 Rationality under PAJA
8.4.2 Rationality and legality
8.4.3 Rationality of progress
8.4.4 Rationality and common-law review
8.5 Proportionality
8.5.1 Proportionality in South African courts
8.5.2 A test for proportionality in South African administrative law?
8.6 Vagueness
8.1 Introduction
Judges are not supposed to decide whether administrative decisions are
correct or not. In other words, they are not to decide on the merits of
administrative action. is is one of the cornerstones of the distinction
between appeal and review. e principal reason for this is the
separation of powers doctrine, which requires that different branches of
government do not impermissibly intrude into the spheres of operation
of other branches. A judge deciding on the merits of administrative
action would be seen as an impermissible intrusion by the judiciary
into the province of the executive. However, there is a more practical
justi cation underpinning the broad principle of separation of powers.
In most cases, judges are not quali ed to make administrative
decisions. ey are not, for example, skilled in weighing the numerous
facts and policy considerations required in deciding the allocation of
shing rights; issuing of water licences; environmental authorisations
or trade licences. ey are, however, skilled in weighing up evidence
and settling disputes. Administrators, on the other hand, are (at least in
theory) experts in their respective elds – whether it is immigration or
income tax or the running of prisons – and their decisions in these elds
ought to be respected by the judiciary for this reason.
e distinction between appeal and review and merits and
regularity is not as clear as it might appear at rst glance, however.1
Probably the aspect that is primarily responsible for the blurring of the
distinction is reasonableness as a ground of review. ere has
historically been resistance to permitting judges to decide on the
reasonableness of administrative action because of concerns that this
would entail judges scrutinising the merits of those decisions. While it is
true that deciding whether an administrative decision is reasonable
would inevitably involve considering the merits of the decision, it ought
not to involve impermissible intrusion into the administrator’s
discretion, and it does not involve deciding whether the decision is right
or wrong. is will be explored in more detail in this chapter.
is clearly rejects the notion that section 6(2)(h) requires gross (or
symptomatic) unreasonableness. is test is somewhat circular – a
decision is unreasonable if it is one that a reasonable decision-maker
could not reach. In other words, the unreasonableness of the decision
depends on a decision as to the reasonableness of the decision-maker
in the circumstances. e court, however, did provide some pointers,
indicating that the determination of a reasonable decision will depend
on the circumstances of each case,18 and that there are various factors
which will be relevant in determining whether a decision is reasonable
or not:
• the nature of the decision,
• the identity and expertise of the decision-maker,
• the range of factors relevant to the decision,
• the reasons given for the decision,
• the nature of the competing interests involved, and
• the impact of the decision on the lives and well-being of those
affected.19
8.4 Rationality
Even though rationality is not explicitly provided for in the Bill of Rights,
it is central to the rule of law: a ‘minimum threshold requirement
applicable to the exercise of all public power by members of the
Executive and other functionaries’.20 Prior to PAJA, the test for rationality
in respect of administrative action was held to be whether there is ‘a
rational objective basis justifying the connection made by the
administrative decision-maker between the material properly available
to him and the conclusion he or she eventually arrived at’.21 e
Supreme Court of Appeal con rmed this test, post PAJA, in Trinity
Broadcasting (Ciskei) v Independent Communications Authority of
South Africa.22 It is important to note that the justi cation for the
connection must be objectively rational. is means that a reasonable
observer must regard the connection as rational – it is not sufficient if
the decision-maker thinks the decision is rational.
ere are several cases where rationality has been invoked. In Trinity
Broadcasting (Ciskei) v Independent Communications Authority of
South Africa,26 several conditions imposed on a broadcasting licence
were held to be irrational. Some were found to be so because there was
no rational connection between the decision and the information
before the administrator. For example, a decision to impose a language
breakdown involving a minimum of 40% isiXhosa and Afrikaans
collectively was justi ed by the respondent on the basis that the
applicant had undertaken in its application to do so. e court,
however, held that there had been no such undertaking, because the
applicant had explained that 75% of its content was foreign
programming.27
e court also found one of the licence conditions irrational
because the condition was not rationally connected to the purpose of
the empowering provision. e condition requiring compulsory news
broadcasts was not required by the applicable Act, which provides that
broadcasting services, viewed collectively, must provide for news.28 is
condition was also not rationally connected to the information available
(the application).
Other matters in which courts have found no objective rational
connection between the facts (information) and the decision are Radio
Pretoria v Chairperson, Independent Communications Authority of
South Africa and Another29 (the decision was made on the basis of a
broadcasting ‘target area’ different from that for which the applicant
had applied) and Total Computer Services (Pty) Ltd v Municipal
Manager, Potchefstroom Local Municipality, and Others30 (a tender
‘points score’ was not justi ed by the information relating to ‘price,
company pro le, preference and reference sites’).31
WWF South Africa v Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries32
was a particularly striking example of the lack of a rational link between
the evidence before the decision-maker and the decision. e Deputy
Director-General (DDG) of the respondent Department (DAFF) was
responsible for determining the total allowable catch (TAC) of West
Coast rock lobster in terms of the Marine Living Resources Act.33 e
decision is supposed to entail a balancing of environmental, economic
and social considerations and is advised by a recommendation from the
Scienti c Working Group (SWG) of the Department. In the face of a
critical shortage of stocks (the lobster stocks were at a level of 1,9% of
the population before human exploitation), the SWG recommended a
large cut in the quota, as it had for several years before this one (2016–
2017). Despite the recommendation and the related evidence, the DDG
relied on social and economic considerations to decide on a TAC far
larger than that recommended. e court, correctly, concluded that, in:
setting the TAC at the previous season’s level of 1 924,08 tons, rather than at a
level no higher than 1 167 tons, [the DDG] acted arbitrarily and irrationally, failed
to observe the mandated precautionary approach, and made a decision which no
reasonable person could have made.34
It has been suggested that the court in this quote found that an
in exible application of policy ‘amounted to irrationality’.39 If this is
what the court held, then it is a novel way of applying rationality –
essentially that a rational decision cannot be made in the absence of
considering all the relevant information. It is not beyond doubt that this
is what the court actually meant, since the court states that the decision
is also irrational, suggesting that this may be a separate holding. is
conclusion is not explained, however.
Often the absence of a rational connection will be found by a court
without much difficulty, because judges are experienced in the use of
logic in order to solve disputes. Sometimes, however, the technical or
scienti c nature of the information on which the decision is based may
make it more difficult for judges, without scienti c backgrounds, to
assess its connection with the decision. In SA Predator Breeders
Association and Others v Minister of Environmental Affairs and
Tourism,40 a challenge to regulations purporting to regulate the practice
of ‘canned lion hunting’, the court was prepared to nd the regulations
irrational. is was, rst, because the regulations were not rationally
connected to the purposes of the Act. e relevant statutory purpose in
this regard was the conservation of endangered or threatened species,
and these regulations had not been made with that end in mind.41 e
second reason was that the regulations envisaged lawful hunting of
lions once a period of 24 months had elapsed after a captive-bred lion
had been rehabilitated. Not only did the 24-month period have no
foundation in the facts, but the expert opinion relied upon by the court
suggested that it was highly unlikely that such lions would ever be
rehabilitated. Consequently, there was no rational connection between
the information and the decision.42 It is submitted that the link in this
case between the ‘scienti c’ fact and the administrator’s conclusion was
relatively straightforward for a non-scientist to assess.
Two decisions in a single matter relating to the granting of shing
rights may not have been justi ed, however. In Foodcorp (Pty) Ltd v
Deputy Director-General, Department of Environmental Affairs and
Tourism: Branch Marine and Coastal Management and Others,43 the
court was considering a challenge to the allocation of shing rights
based on the application of a mathematical formula by the respondent
authority. In the light of certain ‘glaring anomalies’ that the court
identi ed in the allocation decisions, it concluded (on the basis of a
reasonableness argument) that:
One does not need to understand the ‘complex processes, mathematical or
otherwise’ … to realise that at least some of the results produced by the simple
application of the formula were irrational and inexplicable and consequently
unreasonable.44
e court does not explain further on what basis the decision was
irrational. Seemingly on its reasoning process, the irrationality arose
because of the lack of what it regarded as a rational connection between
the rights allocated in the previous rights allocation process and the one
under scrutiny in this case. is conceivably falls under a link between
the information and the decision. e court did not refer to the
rationality provision in PAJA, but rather the reasonableness one (section
6(2)(h)).
Because of this adverse decision, the Department made a new
decision, using a revised mathematical formula. is new allocation
was also challenged and, once again, the court found it irrational.
Relying on section 6(2)(h), the court held that the new decision was ‘no
less irrational, inexplicable and unreasonable’ than the rst one and set
it aside as well.45 It has been argued that these decisions failed to
appreciate the scienti c rationale for the decisions and that the
allocations were, in fact, not irrational.46 If this argument is correct, it
suggests that courts ought to be cautious in interfering with
administrative decisions that are technically complex, without at least
adequate explanation of the process (which seems to have been absent
in this case).
8.5 Proportionality
Not only is proportionality ‘inherent in the Bill of Rights’,68 but it ‘will
always be a signi cant element of reasonableness’, stated Sachs J in
Minister of Health and Another NO v New Clicks South Africa (Pty) Ltd
and Others (Treatment Action Campaign and Another as Amici
Curiae).69 Jowell argued that one category of unreasonableness consists
of ‘oppressive decisions … which have an unnecessarily onerous impact
on affected persons or where the means employed (albeit for lawful
ends) are excessive or disproportionate in their result’.70 Proportionality
is not explicitly provided for in PAJA (although in earlier drafts of the Act
it was), but if proportionality were not regarded as part of
reasonableness, the latter concept, provided for in section 6(2)(h),
would not cover much. is is because rationality is covered separately
(as described above) and symptomatic unreasonableness is largely
redundant because the aws on which this concept are based are all
separately provided for as well.71 e statements in Bato Star Fishing
also support the idea that reasonableness review in terms of PAJA also
includes proportionality.
In that case, the Constitutional Court set out various factors that
would be relevant in determining whether a decision is reasonable or
not.72 Two of these factors are relevant to the concept of proportionality.
e rst is the ‘nature of the competing interests involved’. If the court
must consider the competing interests involved, it will invariably take
into account the extent to which the decision impacts on the interests of
affected individuals, which is the second of the two Bato Star Fishing
factors relevant in this regard: ‘the impact of the decision on the lives
and well-being of those affected’. is raises the possibility of
proportionality being seen as part of reasonableness under PAJA.
Proportionality has been described by an English court as follows: ‘a
measure which interferes with a … human right must not only be
authorized by law but must correspond to a pressing social need and go
no further than strictly necessary in a pluralistic society to achieve its
permitted purpose; or, more shortly, must be appropriate and necessary
to its legitimate aim’.73 In other words, oppressive decisions may be
‘impugned … because of the unnecessarily onerous impact they have
on the rights or interests of persons affected by them’.74 More
prosaically, proportionality can be seen as the proposition that ‘one
ought not to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut’.75
Hoexter describes the status of proportionality as a ground of review
in South African law as ‘controversial’.76 In assessing how proportionality
may operate in South African administrative law, the use of the concept
in the courts will be considered, followed by an evaluation,
conceptually, of how the principle may be applied.
is was part of the reason why the court found in favour of the
applicants.
In Ehrlich v Minister of Correctional Services and Another,86 Plasket J
expressly mentioned proportionality in the judgment as, rst, being a
‘constitutional foundation’87 and as ‘embedded’ in section 6(2)(h) of
PAJA,88 ultimately holding that the decision of the administrator to stop
a karate development programme in a prison was:
disproportionate in the sense that it has entirely destroyed the … programme when,
by simply ensuring that the programme was supervised by his staff, as he was
required to do all along, it could have proceeded as before. In this sense the
decision was what Professor Jowell called oppressive in that its impact on the
karate development programme’s participants was unduly and unjusti ably
onerous.89
One nal aspect to note about proportionality is one that has not been
expressly invoked by South African courts, but is likely to be relevant to
the ground of review of relevant and irrelevant considerations.118
Despite the Supreme Court of Appeal’s holding in MEC for
Environmental Affairs and Development Planning v Clairison’s CC119
that it ‘has always been the law, and we see no reason to think that PAJA
has altered the position that the weight or lack of it to be attached to the
various considerations that go to making up a decision, is that given by
the decision-maker’,120 the court may indeed consider the relative
weight of the considerations taken into account. In one of the leading
cases dealing with this, Bangtoo Bros and Others v National Transport
Commission and Others,121 the court stated:
Take a case, for example, where a factor which is obviously of paramount
importance is relegated to one of insigni cance, and another factor, though
relevant, is given weight far in excess of its true value. Accepting that the tribunal
is the sole judge of the facts, can it be said that it has in the circumstances
postulated properly applied its mind to the matter in the sense required by law?
After much anxious consideration I have come to the conclusion that the answer
must be in the negative.122
8.6 Vagueness
Under the common law, even though vagueness was not mentioned in
the grounds of reasonableness review applicable to legislative
administrative action,129 clarity was regarded as a requirement of
delegated legislation. e courts extended this requirement in one case
to a notice requiring a person to behave in a particular way (a ‘banning
order’).130
Post 1994, the Constitutional Court has rightly stressed that the
legislature ‘is under a duty to pass legislation that is reasonably clear
and precise, enabling citizens and officials to understand what it
expected of them’.131 In light of this, the courts have made it clear that
‘the doctrine of vagueness is based on the rule of law’:132
[L]aws must be written in a clear and accessible manner. What is required is
reasonable certainty and not perfect lucidity. e doctrine of vagueness does not
require absolute certainty of laws. e law must indicate with reasonable
certainty to those who are bound by it what is required of them so that they may
regulate their conduct accordingly. e doctrine of vagueness must recognise the
role of government to further legitimate social and economic objectives. And
should not be used unduly to impede or prevent the furtherance of such
objectives.133
In the New Clicks case, the court also observed that it is ‘implicit in all
empowering legislation that regulations must be consistent with, and
not contradict, one another’.141 In that case, the Constitutional Court
dealt with arguments that various regulations relating to the pricing of
medicines were vague and contradictory,142 but the majority found that
the regulations in question were not void for vagueness. ere was,
however, no disagreement in the court as regards vagueness being a
valid ground of review.
In Kruger v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others,143
the court held two proclamations relating to the commencement date
of an Act invalid because they were vague and uncertain. e court
noted that the public ‘should not have to depend on lawyers to interpret
the meaning and import of words in proclamations in order for them to
know whether a particular piece of legislation passed by Parliament has
taken effect’.144 is case was not decided under PAJA.
e link between vagueness and procedural fairness was raised in
Allpay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Chief Executive
Officer, South African Social Security Agency.145 e court observed:146
vagueness can render a procurement process, or an administrative action,
procedurally unfair under s 6(2)(c) of PAJA. After all, an element of procedural
fairness – which applies to the decision-making process – is that persons are
entitled to know the case they must meet.
In the appeal against the Phambili Fisheries decision, Bato Star Fishing
(Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Others,162 O’ Regan J
suggested that the term ‘deference’ may be misinterpreted. Instead, she
preferred the term ‘respect’, stating that ‘the need for Courts to treat
decision-makers with appropriate deference or respect ows not from
judicial courtesy or etiquette but from the fundamental constitutional
principle of the separation of powers itself’.163
In Bato Star Fishing, O’ Regan J set out various factors which she
indicated would be relevant in determining whether a decision is
reasonable or not:
• e nature of the decision;
• e identity and expertise of the decision-maker;
• e range of factors relevant to the decision;
• e reasons given for the decision;
• e nature of the competing interests involved; and
• e impact of the decision on the lives and well-being of
those affected.164
Another way to look at these factors, and which makes them relevant to
consider at this juncture, is that these factors are those that will
in uence a court in its decision as to whether to interfere with the
administrative decision or not. Let us consider them in more detail
(which the court did not do).
FURTHER READING
• Currie, I (2007) The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act: A Commentary
(2nd ed) Siber Ink: Cape Town 169–170
• De Ville, JR (2005) Judicial Review of Administrative Action in South Africa
LexisNexis: Durban 196–197, 207–210
• Du Plessis, M & Scott, S (2013) The Variable Standard of Rationality Review:
Suggestions for Improved Legality Jurisprudence SALJ 130(3):597
• Hoexter, C (2012) Administrative Law in South Africa (2nd ed) Juta: Cape Town
329–335, 443–444
• Kohn, L (2013) The Burgeoning Constitutional Requirement of Rationality and
Separation of Powers: Has Rationality Review Gone too Far? SALJ 130(4):810
• Plasket, C (2019) Disproportionality — The Hidden Ground of Review: Medirite
(Pty) Ltd v South African Pharmacy Council & Another SALJ 136(1):15
• Price, A (2010) The Content and Justification of Rationality Review SAPL
25:346
MICHAEL KIDD
9.1 Introduction
is section provides answers (at least in broad terms) to two questions:
1. Who may request reasons?
and,
2. What must that person do in order to obtain reasons?
Section 5(1) of PAJA also requires that the adverse effect on the right
must be material, which is not a requirement of section 33(2) of the
Constitution. It is unlikely that this adds anything signi cant to the
applicability of section 5(1). e main reason for this is that it is not
likely that one could envisage a ‘situation where a person’s rights have
been adversely affected but the effect is not material’,34 or, in other
words, would be ‘too trivial to bother about’.35 e Constitutional Court,
in Joseph and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others,36 adopted the
approach that ‘materially and adversely affects’ ‘simply [means] that the
administrative action had a signi cant and not trivial effect’ in deciding
that, in the case before it dealing with the right to procedural fairness,
any effects on the applicant’s rights were material and adverse.
In practice, the requirement that a person’s right must have been
materially and adversely affected in order to qualify for the right to
reasons is unlikely to present much of an obstacle to the applicability of
section 5(1) of PAJA, but it cannot simply be ignored. 37
Any person ‘who has not been given reasons for the action’
e person entitled to request reasons in terms of section 5(1) of PAJA
must be someone who has not already been given reasons for the
action. is may seem to be stating the obvious, but it is important
when a requester has been given something that purports to be reasons,
but which are inadequate. It also raises certain questions relating to the
manner in which a person may have already been given reasons. It is
not infrequent that a person will be given ‘reasons’ for a decision that
do not sufficiently explain why the decision was taken. In such a case,
the administrator would take the view that it has already furnished
reasons (and that consequently a person requesting reasons would not
qualify as someone ‘who has not been given reasons for the action’).
e requester, on the other hand, would argue that what he or she has
received from the administrator does not qualify as reasons. Resolution
of this kind of dispute depends on the adequacy of the reasons, which is
discussed in section 9.3 below.
Two further questions must be considered. First, if a requester has
already been given oral reasons would he or she be a person ‘who has
not been given reasons’? While there is no case law in point, the section
33(2) constitutional right speaks of the right to ‘written reasons’, which
suggests that oral reasons would not suffice. Moreover, if one considers
that the primary role of reasons is to enable a person to decide whether
his or her rights to just administrative action have been adversely
affected and what he or she can do about remedying the situation, oral
reasons would not enable him or her to assess this properly.38 e
second question is whether a person could be said to have been ‘given’
reasons if he or she has not been furnished with such reasons
individually, but they have been made public? An example would be
the publication in a newspaper of reasons for a decision. e answer to
this question has also not been addressed in our courts, but, according
to Hoexter, ‘the answer must depend on the extent of the publication
and the medium used’.39 e important element in this regard would be,
rst, whether the affected person would have reasonable access to the
published reasons and, second, whether the reasons published were
adequate.
e court does not adequately explain why this is the case, but suggests
that, even if this interpretation is wrong, the application was not
premature in this particular case because the respondent department
had, on its own admission, sent out reasons some time before the
application had been brought (but the letter had not been received by
the applicant).
A contrasting approach was adopted in Jikeka v South African Social
Security Agency,51 where the court stated:
e legislature intended the administrator to have a period of 90 days within
(a) which to furnish reasons when it promulgated s 5(2) of PAJA, unless
circumstances warranted a reduction in terms of s 9, or else s 9 would not
have been promulgated;
(b) section 5(2) accordingly is a bar to the institution of proceedings prior to the
expiration of the 90-day period unless by way of an application or by
agreement;
(c) the proceedings can accordingly only be instituted after the expiration of the
90-day period provided for in PAJA, unless an agreement has been reached
to reduce the time period or an application has been brought in terms of s
9(1), failing which it can be dismissed on the basis of it being prematurely
launched.52
ere is a provision in PAJA that has a similar effect. Section 5(3) of PAJA
provides that, if an administrator fails to furnish adequate reasons for
an administrative action, it must, in the absence of proof to the
contrary, be presumed in any proceedings for judicial review that the
administrative action was taken without good reason. is goes further
than the common-law position outlined above, because, in the absence
of reasons, the onus will be shifted onto the administrator to justify his
or her decision. is will apply irrespective of the existence of evidence
of other aws in the process.
In Wessels v Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development and
Others,60 the applicant had requested reasons in terms of section 5 of
PAJA for the respondent’s appointment of the second respondent to the
position of Regional Court President Limpopo instead of the applicant,
who had been shortlisted. In the absence of reasons being furnished,
the applicant applied for the decision to be set aside. e court held
that, in the circumstances, the ‘responsible minister’s failure to furnish
reasons … cannot be seen other than proof that the administrative
action was taken without good reason’,61 and the court set aside the
decision.
It was argued in JH v Health Professions Council of South Africa62 that
failure by an administrator to provide reasons within the 90-day period
envisaged by section 5(2) precluded it from raising reasons when its
decision was taken on review. e court, however, held that an
administrator in such circumstances could put up reasons in the review
process, but that it bore the onus of showing that the decision was taken
with good reason. Were the applicant to decide to abandon the review
once it received reasons in the answering papers, the court stated that it
would ‘ordinarily be entitled to costs’.63
In another case decided post PAJA,64 the court was faced with a
decision of an MEC overturning a decision relating to an amendment of
an exemption from the requirement of an environmental authorisation
where he gave no reasons for doing so. is had been a particularly
contentious case for about a decade, and the court held, without
referring to PAJA, that the absence of reasons ‘renders the amendment
decision irrational, for there is no link between the outcome the MEC
reached and the evidence before him’.65
9.2.4 Departure from requirements of section 5 of PAJA
ere are various opportunities for an administrator to depart from the
requirements of section 5. First, section 2 of PAJA allows the Minister to
exempt an administrator from the requirements of section 5 or to vary
such requirements ‘in order to promote an efficient administration and
if it is reasonable and justi able in the circumstances’. is power has
not yet been utilised. In section 5 itself, there is further scope for
departures: section 5(4) provides that an administrator may depart
from the requirement to furnish adequate reasons if it is reasonable and
justi able in the circumstances, and must forthwith inform the person
making the request of such departure. In determining whether such a
departure is reasonable and justi able, an administrator must take into
account all relevant factors, including:
(i) the objects of the empowering provision;
(ii) the nature, purpose and likely effect of the administrative action concerned;
(iii) the nature and the extent of the departure;
(iv) the relation between the departure and its purpose;
(v) the importance of the purpose of the departure; and
(vi) the need to promote an efficient administration and good governance.66
…
in writing addressed to the association, refuse
(b)
the application, giving reasons for such refusal.
One should be mindful of the point made in Koyabe v Minister for Home
Affairs,108 that the list of factors relevant to the adequacy of reasons is
‘not a closed one, [and] will hinge on the facts and circumstances of
each case and the test for the adequacy of reasons must be an objective
one’. Several further factors in uencing adequacy have, nevertheless,
been suggested in court decisions and academic writing. ese have
been, in almost all cases, mentioned without further explanation, so it
will be useful to consider how these factors might apply, bearing in
mind the ultimate purpose that reasons serve and how adequacy relates
to this purpose:
• e factual context of the administrative action.109 is would tie
in with the requirement (mentioned above) that the administrator
must set out the ndings on the facts, particularly where these have
been in dispute. So a statement of reasons that did not deal in detail
with the facts in a case where the facts were not in dispute would not
be defective for this reason.
• e nature of the proceedings leading up to the action.110 Many
administrative decisions are reached after what can be called a
‘multistaged’ process. For example, an initial investigation into a
state of affairs may lead to a further decision-making process which
results in the ultimate decision.111 In such a case, the reasons
provided would probably have to outline the reasoning process in
the preliminary step(s) as well.
• e nature of the functionary taking the action.112 In the interests
of promotion of administrative efficiency, one might expect that
reasons provided by, for example, a Minister would be less detailed
than those provided by a government functionary at a junior level.
• e purpose for which reasons are intended.113 In many cases, this
might be difficult for an administrator to assess because he or she
will not necessarily know what the requester’s use of the reasons is
likely to be. is may, however, be determined by the nature of the
decision – if, for example, it involves an application that may be
revised by the applicant, then it would be important for the reasons
to indicate how the applicant may alter his or her submission in
order to stand a better chance of success in a second application. In
cases where there is no opportunity for resubmission, it would be
important to provide enough detail for the requester to consider
possible grounds of appeal or review.
• e stage at which these reasons are given.114 Usually, reasons
would be given once a nal decision is made. In multistaged
decision-making processes, however, it may be necessary to give a
person reasons after a preliminary decision in order to enable that
person to exercise his or her rights of procedural fairness properly.
e details provided at that stage may well be less detailed than
reasons for the nal decision.
• Whether and what further remedies are available to contest the
administrative decision.115 is ties in with the observations made
in respect of the purpose for which reasons are intended (above).
• Whether the issue involves an application for a bene t or a
deprivation of a right.116 e rationale behind this suggestion is not
immediately clear, but it may be that one would expect a higher
standard of explanation and justi cation for a decision that
adversely affects existing rights, than for one that involves
determining rights.
• Administrative efficiency.117 is is a factor that will always be
central. It is important that the duty on the administrator to provide
reasons does not impose an unreasonable burden. What is
reasonable will depend on the circumstances of the case and several
of the other factors mentioned here. As Baxter observes, statements
of ‘reasons ought to be commensurate with the … limits of
administrative feasibility’.118
From the discussion above, we are able to distil what could be called
‘prerequisites’ for adequate reasons. ese are itemised in Table 9.1
below.
4. The reasons must not consist solely of the administrator’s conclusion(s), but the administrator’s
reasoning process must be explained.
5. The reasons must not merely be a reiteration of the empowering provision.
7. Reasons must be intelligible and informative from the outset; not only with the benefit of hindsight.
8. If reasons refer to an extraneous source (such as applicable statutory provisions), that extraneous
source must be identifiable to the reasonable reader.
9. Whether and what further remedies are available to contest the administrative decision
10. Whether the issue involves an application for a benefit or a deprivation of a right
FURTHER READING
• Hoexter, C (2012) Administrative Law in South Africa (2nd ed) Cape Town: Juta
Chapter 8
• Quinot, G (2011) The Right to Reasons for Administrative Action as a Key
Ingredient of a Culture of Justification Speculum Juris 25:32–47
1 ere was no general requirement for reasons, save where speci cally provided for by
statute.
2 Mureinik, E (1994) A Bridge to Where? Introducing the Interim Bill of Rights SAJHR
10(1):31 at 38–44.
3 Koyabe and Others v Minister for Home Affairs and Others (Lawyers for Human Rights as
Amicus Curiae) 2010 (4) SA 327 (CC) para 62. See also Currie, I (2007) e Promotion of
Administrative Justice Act: A Commentary (2nd ed) 137.
4 Hoexter, C (2012) Administrative Law in South Africa (2nd ed) 463 fn 14.
5 Baxter, L (1984) Administrative Law 228, footnotes excluded, emphases in original.
Reprinted by permission of © Juta & Company Ltd.
6 Currie (2007) 138.
7 Kiva v Minister of Correctional Services and Another (2007) 28 ILJ 597 (E) para 31.
8 3 of 2000.
9 PAJA section 6(2)(f)(ii)(dd).
10 PAJA section 6(2)(e)(i).
11 103 of 1977.
12 De Ville, JR (2005) Judicial Review of Administrative Action in South Africa 288–289.
13 De Ville (2005) 289.
14 See section 33(3) of the Constitution for the importance of administrative efficiency.
15 See, for example, Mostert NO v Registrar of Pension Funds and Others 2018 (2) SA 53 (SCA)
para 50.
16 Mostert para 41.
17 Currie (2007) 139.
18 Baxter (1984) 228.
19 Hoexter (2012) 461 fn 1; Currie (2007) 146 fn 38.
20 Currie (2007) 146 fn 38.
21 Hoexter (2012) 461.
22 e fact that evidence consists of ‘information’ (as de ned in the Concise Oxford Dictionary
(1982) (7th ed)), leads to potential confusion between ‘information’ and ‘evidence’ (see
Baxter (1984) 230 also fn 263). e confusion is best avoided if one prefers the terms
‘ ndings’ and ‘evidence’.
23 107 of 1998.
24 PAJA section 1(i).
25 18 of 1998.
26 2001 (1) SA 853 (SCA).
27 Goodman Brothers, Olivier JA’s judgment at para 40.
28 Goodman Brothers, Schutz JA’s judgment at para 10.
29 Goodman Brothers para 12.
30 Goodman Brothers, Olivier JA’s judgment at para 42.
31 2006 JDR 0820 (E) paras 21 and 23.
32 Hoexter (2012) 224. Reprinted by permission of © Juta & Company Ltd.
33 Hoexter (2012) 471.
34 Kiva para 23.
35 Hoexter (2012) 473.
36 2010 (4) SA 55 (CC) para 31.
37 Draft 2009 ‘Rules of procedure for judicial review of administrative action’ (which did not
come Into effect) provide that the administrator may refuse a request for reasons if, inter
alia, ‘the requester is not a person whose rights are materially and adversely affected by the
administrative action’ (reg 3(5)(c) of GN R966 in GG 32622 of 09.10.2009).
38 See Hoexter (2012) 473.
39 See Hoexter (2012) 473.
40 GN R1022 in GG 23674 of 31.07.2002. PAJA requires, in section 10(1)(d), the Minister to
make regulations relating to the procedures to be followed in connection with requests for
reasons. ese regulations are those that are required by section 10. e draft 2009 ‘Rules of
procedure for judicial review of administrative action’ supra (note 37), which did not come
into effect, provide for somewhat different procedures (setting out a prescribed form for
requesting reasons, for example).
41 Reg 27(1).
42 Reg 27(2).
43 Reg 27(3)(a).
44 Reg 27(3)(b).
45 PAJA section 9(2).
46 Sikutshwa v MEC for Social Development, Eastern Cape and Others 2009 (3) SA 47 (TkH).
47 GN R1022 in GG 23674 of 31.07.2002.
48 Reg 28.
49 2009 (3) SA 47 (TkH).
50 Sikutshwa para 76, reference excluded.
51 2011 (6) SA 628 (ECM).
52 Jikeka para 11.
53 Jikeka para 12.
54 Jikeka para 12.
55 On section 7(1) see Chapter 11 at section 11.3.2.
56 1972 (3) SA 726 (A) 736.
57 Chetty’s Motor Transport 736G.
58 1985 (2) SA 234 (SE) 246H.
59 1987 (1) SA 387 (C).
60 2010 (1) SA 128 (GNP).
61 Wessels 141E.
62 2016 (2) SA 93 (WCC).
63 JH v Health Professions Council of South Africa 2016 (2) SA 93 (WCC) para 14.
64 Black Eagle Project Roodekrans v MEC: Department of Agriculture, Conservation and
Environment, Gauteng Provincial Department (6085/07) [2019] ZAGPJHC 23; [2019] 2 All
SA 322 (GJ).
65 Black Eagle Project para 43.
66 PAJA section 5(4)(b).
67 GN R1022 in GG 23674 of 31.07.2002.
68 Reg 28(2).
69 See Currie (2007) 149.
70 107 of 1998.
71 10 of 2004.
72 PAJA section 4(2)(b)(iii).
73 2 of 2000.
74 Rèan International Supply Company (Pty) Ltd and Others v Mpumalanga Gaming Board
1999 (8) BCLR 918 (T) at 926.
75 According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, ‘adequate’ means ‘sufficient or satisfactory’.
76 (1983) 48 ALR 500, quoted in Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Others v
Phambili Fisheries (Pty) Ltd; Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Others v
Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd 2003 (6) SA 407 (SCA) para 40.
77 2003 (5) SA 480 (T) at 486.
78 Phambili Fisheries para 40.
79 Quoting the Australian case of Ansett Transport Industries 507.
80 2010 (4) SA 327 (CC) para 64.
81 Koyabe para 63.
82 (2007) 28 ILJ 597 (E).
83 Kiva para 39.
84 Kiva para 39.
85 Kiva para 40.
86 2019 (1) SA 21 (CC).
87 130 of 1998.
88 Gavric para 69.
89 Gavric para 81.
90 Refugee Appeal Board and Others v Mukungubila 2019 (3) SA 141 (SCA).
91 Mukungubila para 25.
92 Mukungubila para 27.
93 See Maimela 485–486.
94 See also Maimela 485–486, where the court stated: ‘e adequacy of reasons will depend
on a variety of factors, such as the factual context of the administrative action, the nature
and complexity of the action, the nature of the proceedings leading up to the action and the
nature of the functionary taking the action’.
95 (1996) 17 ILJ 251 (O).
96 Moletsane 254F.
97 Currie (2007) 146.
98 13 of 2004.
99 Currie (2007) 146–147.
100 25 of 1999.
101 See Currie (2007) 145.
102 PAJA section 3(2)(b)(iii).
103 Gumede and Others v Minister of Law and Order and Another 1984 (4) SA 915 (N),
con rmed in Nkondo and Others v Minister of Law and Order 1986 (2) SA 756 (A).
104 Maimela 486F-G.
105 Maimela 483D.
106 Reg 28(3)(a) of regulations promulgated in terms of the Arms and Ammunition Act 75 of
1969 – see Maimela 486E.
107 Maimela 486G.
108 Koyabe para 64.
109 Maimela 485–486.
110 Maimela 485–486.
111 See, for example, Oosthuizen’s Transport (Pty) Ltd and Others v MEC, Road Traffic Matters,
Mpumalanga and Others 2008 (2) SA 570 (T).
112 Maimela 485–486.
113 Koyabe para 64.
114 Koyabe para 64.
115 Koyabe para 64.
116 De Ville (2005) 294.
117 De Ville (2005) 294. See also the observations made in section 9.1 above.
118 Baxter (1984) 230.
119 Phambili Fisheries para 40.
120 Maimela 486A.
121 2001 (8) BCLR 844 (E).
122 Nomala 856.
123 Nomala 855.
124 Nomala 856.
125 (23036/09) [2010] ZAWCHC 172 (13 September 2010).
126 13 of 2004.
127 Ngomana para 48.
128 Ngomana para 48.
129 Ngomana para 49.
130 2008 (2) SA 481 (SCA).
131 See Minister of Social Development v Phoenix Cash & Carry–Pmb CC [2007] 3 All SA 115
(SCA) para 23.
132 2011 (4) SA 551 (SCA).
133 Sprigg Investment para 13.
134 Sprigg Investment para 14.
135 Sprigg Investment para 17.
136 Maimela 487B–D.
137 Currie (2007) 150 fn 54.
Rules of procedure for judicial review of administrative action, Reg 3(5)(c) of GN R966 in
138 GG 32622 of 09.10.2009 (not yet in operation).
139 Reg 6.
140 See Rule 53 of the Uniform Rules of Court.
141 2013 (1) SA 170.
142 National Lotteries Board para 27.
143 National Lotteries Board para 27.
144 National Lotteries Board para 28.
145 De Ville (2005) 294 fn 67.
146 National and Overseas Modular Construction (Pty) Ltd v Tender Board, Free State
Provincial Government and Another 1999 (1) SA 701 (O); Liquor Web (Edms) Bpk v
Voorsitter, Drankraad en ’n Ander 2001 (1) SA 1069 (T); and Grinaker LTA Ltd and Another v
Tender Board (Mpumalanga) and Others [2002] 3 All SA 336 (T).
147 Currie (2007) 147.
148 2013 (1) SA 170.
149 JSC v CBC para 38.
150 JSC v CBC para 38.
151 JSC v CBC para 42.
152 JSC v CBC para 43.
153 JSC v CBC para 45.
154 JSC v CBC para 46.
155 JSC v CBC para 47.
156 See Albutt.
Administrative justice and
drafting empowering provisions
GEO QUINOT
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Lawfulness
10.2.1 Certainty
10.2.2 Guiding discretionary powers
10.2.3 Purpose
10.2.4 Duty to act
10.2.5 Consolidated versions
10.2 Lawfulness
As noted in Chapter 6, lawfulness involves at its core the requirement
that all administrative action must be authorised. is is the basis for
the very requirement that an empowering provision must exist for every
administrative action. Furthermore, the requirement of lawfulness
entails that the administrative action must be taken in terms of the
authorisation, that is, the administrative action must fall within the
boundaries of the empowering provision.
Lawfulness therefore gives expression to the core constitutional
requirement of legality as part of the rule of law, which the
Constitutional Court in Fedsure Life Assurance Ltd and Others v Greater
Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan Council and Others13
formulated as follows:
It seems central to the conception of our constitutional order that the Legislature
and Executive in every sphere are constrained by the principle that they may
exercise no power and perform no function beyond that conferred upon them by
law.
10.2.1 Certainty
If administrative action is limited to the boundaries of the empowering
provision, it is of prime importance that those boundaries be stated as
clearly as possible. Without clarity on the exact content and scope of the
powers granted, an administrator will always be at risk of stepping
outside of those boundaries and hence acting unlawfully.
While clarity is always an objective in legislative drafting,14 it takes
on an added importance in the case of empowering provisions given
the requirement of lawfulness. In Affordable Medicines Trust and Others
v Minister of Health and Others15 the Constitutional Court thus declared
that ‘delegation must not be so broad or vague that the authority to
whom the power is delegated is unable to determine the nature and the
scope of the powers conferred’.
ere are numerous general techniques of legislative drafting that
can be employed to enhance clarity and hence certainty about the
scope of the administrative powers. One such technique is to bear the
readership of the provision in mind. As McLeod rightly reminds us, the
meaning of any written text depends as much on the reader as on the
writer, which is equally true in the case of legislative drafting.16 When
drafting empowering provisions, it is accordingly important to bear in
mind who the administrator is that will have to interpret that provision
to formulate an administrative action within the boundaries of the
provision. e empowering provision should be framed in such a way to
make sense within the relevant administrative context and to the
particular administrators in that context.
Whose interpretation?
One of the most vexing questions in administrative law is
whose interpretation of empowering provisions should be
definitive of the meaning of a particular provision. This
question arises when an administrative action is
challenged in judicial review on the basis of an error of
law. As noted in Chapter 6, PAJA section 6(2)(d) allows a
court to review an administrative action if the action was
materially influenced by an error of law.17 This will be the
case if the administrator adopted an interpretation of the
empowering provision that the court subsequently
disagrees with and upon the interpretation that the court
adopts, the administrator would have taken a different
decision.18
The difficult question, however, is why the courts’
interpretation should necessarily trump that of the
administrator, especially in instances where the
administrator’s interpretation is a feasible one. This is
especially problematic given that courts are only meant
to review an administrative action and not to determine
its correctness, which would be a matter of appeal.
When a court rules that an administrative action should
be set aside because the administrator adopted an
incorrect interpretation of the empowering provision, this
distinction between review and appeal, which South
African courts insist on as we noted in Chapters 119 and
5,20 becomes distinctly blurred.21
The challenges raised by review for error of law have
played an important role in the development of the
notion of deference in many common-law jurisdictions.22
Particularly in Canadian administrative law, Dyzenhaus
has engaged with the notion of deference as part of the
question of how courts should deal with administrative
interpretation of the law.23 That is, should courts defer to
the administrator’s interpretation of the empowering
provision given that the provision was primarily enacted
with the view that the relevant administrator would be
the one to implement it?
Of course, the issues raised by review for error of law
is closely linked to the extent to which the empowering
provision allows for significantly different interpretations.
10.2.3 Purpose
e need to limit discretionary administrative power requires
empowering provisions to be explicit about the purposes for which
power is granted. is is because even though the particular action may
be authorised, it will still be unlawful if that action is taken for a reason
not authorised,29 an ulterior purpose or motive.30 is requirement can
put an administrator at considerable risk in the absence of a clear
declaration of purpose in the empowering provision.
PREAMBLE
It is clear that while the use of the words ‘may’ and ‘shall’/‘must’
provide some guidance on whether the empowering provision creates a
duty or a power, the purpose of the provision will also play a role. When
drafting empowering provisions it is accordingly important to provide
clear and explicit guidance on whether a particular authorisation
amounts to a power or a duty, given the differences in how those will be
treated in administrative law.
A nal consideration regarding a duty to act, is the timeframe within
which the duty must be exercised. PAJA provides that an omission will
amount to a failure to act when a duty to act has not been exercised
within the stated timeframe or, in the absence of a stated timeframe,
within a reasonable time.39 It may not always be easy to determine
exactly what would be a reasonable time, which may create undue
pressure on administrators to take premature decisions. It is thus
desirable that empowering provisions state a timeframe within which a
duty to act must be exercised.
62. Appeals.—
FURTHER READING
• Bednar-Giyose, J (2018) Legislative Drafting and the Appropriate Delineation
of Administrative Power (PhD dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand)
11.1 Introduction
11.2 Standing
11.2.1 The concept of standing
11.2.2 The rationale for a standing requirement
11.2.3 Standing under the common law
11.2.4 Standing under section 38 of the Constitution
11.2.5 Standing under PAJA
11.2.6 Standing in practice
11.1 Introduction
Chapters 4 and 5 looked at a range of different legal mechanisms aimed
at regulating administrative action. at is, mechanisms that can ensure
that administrators follow the rules of administrative law. Despite the
existence of a variety of mechanisms and the importance of developing
an integrated system of administrative-law controls,1 one mechanism
continues to dominate the regulatory landscape, namely judicial
review. As has been noted in the preceding chapters, this means that
the constraints on administrative law are mostly those that are
produced by the grounds of judicial review in section 6(2) of the
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA).2
is chapter looks at when and how an aggrieved person can
approach a court to argue that a particular administrative decision falls
foul of particular grounds of review.
11.2 Standing
Standing is a threshold requirement that a litigant must satisfy before
they can persuade a court to engage with the substance of their case. It
is the right of a particular person to approach a court of law for relief.
Standing might seem a technical issue, but it has a signi cant impact on
the ability of citizens to use administrative law to challenge the use of
public power.
Commission of Inquiry
The President decides to appoint a commission of
inquiry into the administration of soccer. This upsets a
number of people. In particular, the South African
Football Association alleges that they were not given an
opportunity to make representations before the
Commission was appointed. They wish to challenge and
set aside the decision under PAJA. Soccer players and
club managers believe that the Commission will harm
the reputation of South African soccer.
• Do the Football Association, the players, the club
managers or soccer fans have standing to challenge
the President’s decision?
With these questions in mind, we enter into the debate about the
standing requirement in South African administrative law.
It is important to note that the time frame under PAJA is not simply 180
days, but – depending on the facts of the case – may indeed be much
shorter than that. is is by virtue of the fact that PAJA also requires
reviews to be instituted ‘without unreasonable delay’. e 180-day
period is therefore simply the maximum period, beyond which the
applicant will undoubtedly need an extension from the court,56 as we
explain below.
PAJA thus retains the common-law rule against unreasonable
delay.57 is rule is said to serve two purposes:
First, the failure to bring a review within a reasonable time may cause prejudice to
the respondent. Secondly, there is a public interest element in the nality of
administrative decisions and the exercise of administrative functions.58
is was affirmed in City of Cape Town v Aurecon South Africa (Pty)
Limited,66 where the Constitutional Court held that ‘… due regard must
also be given to the importance of the issue that is raised and the
prospects of success’.67
e 180-day maximum period to launch review proceedings may be
extended in terms of section 9 of PAJA either by way of agreement
between the parties (which is of course highly unlikely) or by the court.
If agreement cannot be reached with the respondent administrator, the
applicant will have to apply to court showing that it is in the interest of
justice for the 180-day period to be extended.68 e factors used to
determine whether such extension is in the interest of justice will be
largely similar to those listed above in determining whether to condone
an unreasonable delay.69 Since a refusal to grant an extension may lead
to an invalid administrative action remaining in force, because the
applicant brought the review out of time, a court will also consider the
imperatives of legality against nality in deciding upon what is in the
interest of justice in the particular case.
In Gijima70 and Buffalo City,71 the Constitutional Court held that
even an unreasonable delay should not preclude a court reaching the
merits and declaring a decision invalid where it was ‘clearly unlawful’.
e court preferred instead to use delay mainly as an issue that went to
the question of an appropriate remedy.72 In Buffalo City it held:
[T]his matter is on the same footing as Gijima where the decision maker had
failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and, for the reasons
outlined, I am unable to nd any basis upon which this delay may be overlooked.
… However, this is not the end of the enquiry. On the authority of Gijima, this
Court must, having established that the Reeston contract was clearly unlawful on
undisputed facts, declare it invalid in terms of the provisions of section 172(1)(a)
and set it aside. e unlawfulness of the Reeston contract cannot be ignored and
this Court is obliged, as it did in Gijima, to set aside a contract it knows to be
unlawful. Even on a restrictive interpretation of the Gijima principle, bearing in
mind the need to hold the state to the procedural requirements of review, as
explained above, I can see no reason to depart from it in this matter.73
is approach – that a court may (and must) still declare a decision
invalid even after concluding that there has been unreasonable delay in
the bringing of the review application and even without condonation
being granted or justi ed – is a substantial and, in our view, regrettable
departure from long-standing principles of administrative law.
However, the principles concerned were articulated by the
Constitutional Court in the context of legality reviews brought by organs
of state in respect of their own decisions. We would thus hope that they
are con ned to this area and are not extended to PAJA reviews or indeed
legality reviews brought by private parties.
In Forbes, the SCA held that because the advantages of Rule 53 were
primarily for the bene t of the applicant, it was the applicant who could
choose whether to proceed by way of Rule 53 or instead make use of the
ordinary application procedure under Rule 6 – where no record would
be provided.
e Forbes decision, however, took place in the context of a case
where the only respondent was the administrative decision-maker
itself. Later decisions of the SCA have emphasised the value of the Rule
53 record to private respondents in review proceedings. For example,
where a decision to award a tender or a broadcasting licence is
challenged in review proceedings, the private party who received the
tender or broadcasting licence will have to be cited as one of the
respondents. However, that private party too will be ‘in the dark’ as to
the proceedings of the administrative decision-maker and the reasons
for its decision. If the private party is to be properly able to exercise its
right to seek to defend the administrative decision, it is essential that it
has access to the Rule 53 record. is was explained by the SCA in
Stanton Woodbrush:89
If, as is the usual case, the proceedings are between the applicant and the organ of
State involved, the latter can always, in answer to an ordinary application, supply
the record of the proceedings and the reasons for its decision. On the other hand,
as in this instance, if the rights of another member of the public are involved, and
the organ of State, hiding behind a parapet of silence, adopts a supine attitude
towards the matter since the order sought will not affect it (no costs were sought
against the Registrar if the latter were to remain inactive), the position is
materially different. Stanton was entitled to have the full record before the Court
and to have the Registrar’s reasons for the impugned decisions available. As a
respondent in an ordinary application it does not have those rights.
e main bene t of the Rule 53 record is thus to allow the parties and
the court to consider whether, in light of the information actually before
the administrative decision-maker and the process actually followed,
the requirements of PAJA were satis ed. is is to the bene t of the
litigants (applicants and respondents) and also the court, as the
Constitutional Court has explained:
Undeniably, a rule 53 record is an invaluable tool in the review process. It may
help: shed light on what happened and why; give a lie to unfounded ex post facto
(after the fact) justi cation of the decision under review; in the substantiation of
as yet not fully substantiated grounds of review; in giving support to the decision-
maker’s stance; and in the performance of the reviewing court’s function.90
To provide a few practical examples, the production of the record might
reveal that:
• e decision-maker adopted a procedure whereby it invited
submissions from some parties, but not others.
• e decision-maker was not properly authorised or quorate when
taking the decision.
• e decision-maker had a wealth of information before it, but failed
to take account of that information.
• e decision-maker proceeded on an understanding of the facts that
was not correct.
is ‘every scrap of paper’ approach is now well entrenched in our law
and has been expressly endorsed by the Constitutional Court.94
Indeed, where the Constitutional Court has diverged from the
Johannesburg City Council approach, it has broadened – rather than
narrowed – the scope of what is to be included in the record of
proceedings. In Johannesburg City Council, the court held that the
‘every scrap of paper’ approach would not include a record of the
deliberations of the body concerned:
A record of proceedings is analagous to the record of proceedings in a court of law
which quite clearly does not include a record of the deliberations subsequent to
the receiving of the evidence and preceding the announcement of the court’s
decision. us the deliberations of the Executive Committee are as little part of
the record of proceedings as the private deliberations of the jury or of the Court in
a case before it. It does, however, include all the documents before the Executive
Committee as well as all documents which are by reference incorporated in the
le before it.95
FURTHER READING
• Plasket, C (2002) The Exhaustion of Internal Remedies and Section 7(2) of the
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 SALJ 119(1):50
• Quinot, G (2010) New Procedures for the Judicial Review of Administration
Action SA Public Law 25:646
1 See Hoexter, C (2000) e Future of Judicial Review in South African Administrative Law
SALJ 117(3):484; Chapter 4 section 4.1 above.
2 3 of 2000.
3 De Ville, JR (2005) Judicial Review of Administrative Action in South Africa (revised 1st ed)
399.
4 Baxter, L (1984) Administrative Law 645.
5 Baxter (1984) 645.
6 Ferreira v Levin NO and Others; Vryenhoek and Others v Powell NO and Others 1996 (1) SA
984 (CC) para 164. See also Zantsi v Council of State, Ciskei and Others 1995 (10) BCLR 1424
(CC) para 7.
7 Baxter (1984) 645.
8 Hoexter, C (2012) Administrative Law in South Africa (2nd ed) 490.
9 Hoexter (2012) 490.
10 Ferreira para 164.
11 De Ville (2005) 399.
12 Endicott, T (2011) Administrative Law (2nd ed) 405, 409.
13 Endicott (2011) 405, 409.
14 Dalrumple and Others v Colonial Treasurer 1910 TS 372 at 379, as cited in Baxter (1984) 651.
15 Baxter (1984) 652.
16 Baxter (1984) 653, citing Riddelsdell v Hall (1883) 2 SC 356; Wood and Others v Ondangwa
Tribal Authority and Another 1975 (2) SA 294 (A) 310.
17 Baxter (1984) 654. See also Johannesburg City Council v Administrator, Transvaal and
Another 1969 (2) SA 72 (T).
18 Ferreira para 229.
19 Kruger v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others 2009 (1) SA 417 (CC) para 22.
20 Hoexter (2012) 494; De Ville (2005) 401.
21 Hoexter (2012) 494; De Ville (2005) 401.
22 Giant Concerts CC v Rinaldo Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others 2013 (3) BCLR 251 (CC) para
29.
23 See Democratic Alliance and Others v Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions and
Others 2012 (3) SA 486 (SCA) paras 38–47.
24 Giant Concerts para 32.
25 at is standing conferred by section 38(a) of the Constitution.
26 Giant Concerts para 33.
27 Giant Concerts para 34.
28 Giant Concerts para 34.
29 2018 (2) SA 23 (CC).
30 Gijima paras 19–29.
31 Gijima paras 30–32.
32 Hoexter (2012) 495.
33 Ferreira para 166.
34 Ferreira para 166, citing R v Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott [1988] 31 CRR 1 (SCC).
35 [2018] ZASCA 7.
36 WDR Earthmoving Enterprises para 34
37 WDR Earthmoving Enterprises para 16.
38 2001 (2) SA 609 (E).
39 Ngxuza at 622J–623A.
40 Ngxuza at 624F–G.
41 In addition, it held that the applicants were acting in the public interest, thus had standing
in terms of section 38(d).
42 On the factors to be taken into account regarding whether to grant certi cation, see
Trustees for the time being of Children’s Resource Centre Trust and Others v Pioneer Food
(Pty) Ltd and Others 2013 (2) SA 213 (SCA) at paras 23 to 28; and Mukaddam v Pioneer
Foods (Pty) Ltd and Others 2013 (5) SA 89 (CC) at paras 34 to 39.
43 Mukaddam para 40.
44 Subsection 38(d) connotes an action on behalf of people on a basis wider than the class
actions contemplated in the section. See Lawyers for Human Rights and Another v Minister
of Home Affairs and Another 2004 (4) SA 125 (CC) para 15.
45 South African Law Reform Commission Report (1998) e Recognition of Class Actions and
Public Interest Actions in South African Law (Project 88); Hoexter (2012) 505.
46 Section27 and Others v Minister of Education and Another 2013 (2) SA 40 (GNP) para 9.
47 Ferreira (per O’Regan J) para 234; Lawyers for Human Rights paras 16–17.
48 Lawyers for Human Rights para 18.
49 2018 (2) SA 185 (CC).
50 Afriforum para 26.
51 For more detail see De Ville (2005) 428–433 and Hoexter (2012) 508–511.
52 Afriforum para 27.
53 See Chapter 4 section 4.3.
54 PAJA section 7(1)(a).
55 PAJA section 7(1)(b).
56 Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance and Others v e South African National Roads Agency
Ltd and Others [2013] 4 All SA 639 (SCA) para 26 cited with approval in Buffalo City
Metropolitan Municipality v Asla Construction (Pty) Limited 2019 (4) SA 331 (CC) para 49.
57 Chairperson, Standing Tender Committee and Others v JFE Sapela Electronics (Pty) Ltd and
Others 2008 (2) SA 638 (SCA) para 28.
58 Associated Institutions Pension Fund and Others v Van Zyl and Others 2005 (2) SA 302 (SCA)
para 46.
59 Wolgroeiers Afslaers (EDMS) BPK v Munisipaliteit van Kaapstad 1978 (1) SA 13 (A); Camps
Bay Ratepayers’ and Residents’ Association v Harrison [2010] 2 All SA 519 (SCA) para 61.
60 Department of Transport v Tasima (Pty) Limited 2017 (2) SA 622 (CC) para 170; Buffalo City
para 54; Gqwetha v Transkei Development Corporation Ltd and Others 2006 (2) SA 603
(SCA) para 23; PG Bison Ltd (in liquidation) and Others v Johannesburg Glassworks (Pty)
Ltd (in liquidation) 2006 (4) SA 535 (W) para 12.
61 Gqwetha para 24.
62 Gqwetha para 24.
63 Buffalo City para 55; Khumalo and Another v Member of the Executive Council for
Education: KwaZulu Natal 2014 (5) SA 579 (CC) para 57; Sasol Oil (Pty) Ltd and Another v
Metcalfe NO 2004 (5) SA 161 (W) para 7; Spier Properties (Pty) Ltd and Another v Chairman,
Wine and Spirit Board, and Others 1999 (3) SA 832 (C) at 844–845.
64 2017 (1) SA 468 (SCA).
65 SANRAL para 81.
66 2017 (4) SA 223 (CC).
67 Aurecon para 49.
68 PAJA section 9(2).
69 Camps Bay Ratepayers’ and Residents’ Association para 54.
70 Gijima para 52
71 Buffalo City paras 99–100
72 Gijima paras 53–54; Buffalo City para 105
73 Buffalo City paras 99–100
74 Designation of Magistrates’ Courts under the De nition of ‘Court’ in the Promotion of
Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 – GN 1216 in GG 42717 of 19.19.2019.
75 Paragraph (a)(i) of the Designation.
76 Paragraph (a)(ii) of the Designation.
77 e de nition of ‘court’ also contemplates the Constitutional Court having jurisdiction to
hear judicial review applications under its ‘direct access’ jurisdiction but this appears never
to have been used. Given the Constitutional Court’s general reluctance to grant direct
access, it would require the most extraordinary circumstances to persuade the court to
hear a judicial review application under PAJA on a direct access basis. See Bruce v Fleecytex
Johannesburg CC 1998 (2) SA 1143 (CC) at paras 7–8 and the many cases following it.
78 Also known as the Uniform Rules of Court.
79 Helen Suzman Foundation v JSC 2018 (4) SA 1 (CC) para 26.
80 See Telcordia Technologies Inc v Telkom SA Ltd 2007 (3) SA 266 (SCA) para 32; Helen
Suzman Foundation para 26.
81 Tao Ying Metal Industry (Pty) Ltd v Pooe NO and Others 2007 (5) SA 146 (SCA) para 98.is
ows from the general principle that an applicant’s cause of action may not be made out in
reply. However, a court has a discretion to allow new matter in a replying affidavit in
exceptional circumstances – for example where facts alleged in the respondent’s answering
affidavit reveal the existence or possible existence of a further ground for the relief sought
by the applicant. See Finishing Touch 163 (Pty) Ltd v BHP Billiton Energy Coal SA Ltd 2013
(2) SA 204 (SCA) at para 26.
82 e Rules Board is established by the Rules Board for Courts of Law Act 107 of 1985. It is the
body that is responsible for making rules for the Supreme Court of Appeal, High Court and
magistrates’ courts. It includes judges, practitioners, a representative of the Department of
Justice and others.
83 Lawyers for Human Rights v Rules Board for Courts of Law and Another [2012] 3 All SA 153
(GNP).
84 Promotion of Access to Information Rules and Administrative Review Rules, 2019 – GN
R1284 in GG 42740 of 04.10.2019.
85 Administrative Review Rules, rule 2(1).
86 Administrative Review Rules, rule 3(1).
87 Administrative Review Rules, rules 2(3)(a) and 3(2)(a).
88 1993 (1) SA 649 (A).
89 South African Football Association v Stanton Woodrush (Pty) Ltd t/a Stan Smidt & Sons and
Another 2003 (3) SA 313 (SCA) para 5. See also SACCAWU and Others v President,
Industrial Tribunal, and Another 2001 (2) SA 277 (SCA) para 7.
90 Turnbull-Jackson v Hibiscus Court Municipality and Others 2014 (6) SA 592 (CC) para 37.
91 Public Protector v SA Reserve Bank 2019 (6) SA 253 (CC) para 185 .
92 1970 (2) SA 89 (T).
93 At 91G–H.
94 Public Protector para 185.
95 At 91H–92B.
96 At para 27.
97 Democratic Alliance v President of the Republic of South Africa 2017 (4) SA 253 (GP).
98 President of the Republic of South Africa v Democratic Alliance and Others (664/17) [2018]
ZASCA 79 (31 May 2018).
99 President of the Republic of South Africa v Democratic Alliance and Others 2020 (1) SA 428
(CC).
Remedies in judicial review
proceedings
12.1 Introduction
12.7 Substitution
12.7.1 The test for substitution
12.7.2 Applying the test: illustrative cases
12.7.3 Alternatives to full substitution orders
12.8 Compensation
12.8.1 Delictual damages for malperformance of statutory functions
12.8.2 Compensation under section 8(1)(c)(ii)(bb) of PAJA
12.8.3 Compensation for unjustified enrichment
12.8.4 Constitutional damages
12.10 Interdicts
12.10.1 Prohibitory, mandatory and structural interdicts
12.10.2 Interim and final interdicts
12.10.3 Interdicts that restrain the exercise of executive and legislative power
12.13 Costs
12.1 Introduction
Once a court has decided that an administrative action is invalid (on
one or more grounds of review), what happens next? is chapter
discusses the different remedies that a court may grant if the
application for judicial review is successful.
e chapter starts with a discussion of the nature and purpose of
remedies on judicial review: what are review remedies, and why are
they needed? is is followed by a description of the two-staged
approach to judicial review proceedings that the Constitutional Court
has adopted, in line with section 172 of the Constitution. e two-
staged approach sets out that, at the rst stage, if the court nds that the
administrative action is unlawful or falls short of what the Constitution,
the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act1 (PAJA) and the common
law requires, the court must declare the action invalid. At the second
stage, the court then has discretion to order a just and equitable
remedy. e two-staged approach now informs how the courts address
remedies.
e chapter then discusses the main remedies on judicial review,
which are set out in PAJA, and include:
• setting aside the irregular administrative action,
• remittal to the administrative decision-maker for a new decision to
be taken,
• substitution of the correct decision by the court,
• a declaration of rights,
• the award of compensation to affected parties, and
• interdicts.
After this, the chapter considers the remedies for an unlawful failure to
take administrative action. e chapter concludes with a discussion of
other common law or statutory remedies that may be applied by the
courts, and the approach to costs orders in judicial review proceedings.
Depending on the circumstances, the court may set aside (or annul) the
irregular decision and either remit (send) the matter to the decision-
maker for a new decision to be taken or, in exceptional cases, substitute
its own decision for that of the administrator. e court may direct the
administrator to act in an appropriate manner or prohibit him or her
from acting in a particular manner, and may even order the
administrator to pay compensation to affected parties. In other cases,
the court may be constrained by practical considerations, or by the
public interest, to suspend a declaration of invalidity or con ne itself to
a declaration of rights while leaving the irregular decision intact.
Overall, in determining the appropriate remedy, the approach of the
South African courts is exible, context-sensitive and pragmatic. e
South African law on remedies is thus relatively simple and
unencumbered by technicalities. is is re ected in the provision on
remedies under PAJA. Section 8 of PAJA affords the court a ‘generous
jurisdiction’ to craft appropriate remedies and incorporates the
overriding constitutional standard that the remedy must be ‘just and
equitable’.7 It provides that the court ‘may grant any order that is just
and equitable’ and provides an open list of the type of orders that the
court may grant.8 e court’s approach to the remedy of compensation
under section 8(1)(c)(ii)(bb) of PAJA is an exception, however. ere,
the courts have adopted an unusually technical approach, which limits
the reach of that remedy.
e court’s statement that Cash Paymaster had ‘no right to bene t from
an unlawful contract’ generated considerable debate in the litigation
saga that ensued, and was dubbed by some of the parties as ‘the no
pro t principle’.
Whether the ‘no pro t principle’ is in fact a principle in our law;
whether it is a manifestation of the corrective principle, and thus a
default principle; and in what circumstances its application is just and
equitable, remains unclear. Much of this uncertainty ows from the fact
that, despite setting aside Cash Paymaster’s contract, the Constitutional
Court did not direct Cash Paymaster to repay the pro ts it earned under
the contract (but only to report to the court on its pro ts). Also, had the
Constitutional Court meant to adopt such a far-reaching and novel
principle, one would have expected a more considered discussion of
the basis and implications of the principle (like the debate that ensued
in Steenkamp NO v Provincial Tender Board, Eastern Cape,29 over a
tenderer’s entitlement to claim delictual damages for out-of-pocket
expenses incurred in reliance on a tender award, discussed in 12.8.1
below). But the Constitutional Court did no more than make the
passing remark quoted above, supported by an oblique footnote.
Despite the uncertain import of the Constitutional Court’s dictum in
Allpay, the ‘no pro t principle’ has gained traction. In another case
involving Cash Paymaster and its contract to administer social grants,
the High Court set aside an extension of that same contract, and
directed Cash Paymaster to pay back the full amount it had received
under the invalid extension.30 e High Court’s order was upheld by the
Supreme Court of Appeal,31 and leave to appeal to the Constitutional
Court was refused for lack of prospects of success.
Similarly, in Intertrade Two (Pty) Ltd v MEC for Roads and Public
Works, Eastern Cape and Another,82 Plasket J emphasised that the
separation of powers principle meant that:
[C]ourts, when considering the validity of administrative action, must be wary of
intruding, even with the best of motives, without justi cation into the terrain that
is reserved for the administrative branch of government. ese restraints on the
powers of the courts are universal in democratic societies such as ours and
necessarily mean that there are limits on the powers of the courts to repair
damage that has been caused by a breakdown in the administrative process.
12.7 Substitution
Instead of remitting a matter to the administrator, the court has the
power to substitute its own decision for that of the administrator, or it
may vary the administrative action or correct a defect resulting from the
administrative action.89 However, under both the common law and
section 8(1)(c)(ii)(aa) of PAJA, the exercise of this interventionist
remedial power is justi ed only in ‘exceptional cases’.90 In view of the
constitutional separation of powers and the functional distinction
between reviews and appeals, substitution is considered to be an
extraordinary remedy in judicial review. us the courts have held that
the remedy is to be ‘exercised sparingly, in exceptional circumstances’,
and only when a court is persuaded that a decision to exercise a power
should not be left to the designated functionary.91
As the Constitutional Court has stated, ‘remittal is still almost always
the prudent and proper course’.92 e Constitutional Court has also
emphasised that even where there are exceptional circumstances, a
court must be satis ed that it would be just and equitable, and fair to
the implicated parties, to grant an order of substitution.93 In making this
determination, the court must have regard to all the relevant facts and
circumstances.94
Where the court is satis ed that it is able to make the decision, then the
overriding principle, and the common thread in the equitable factors, is
‘fairness to both sides’.105
12.8 Compensation
Judicial review is generally an inappropriate means for an individual to
seek recovery of loss suffered as a result of unlawful administrative
action. Judicial review is directed primarily at the pre-emption,
correction or reversal of improper administrative acts, rather than at
compensating people by way of damages.122 e Rule 53 motion
procedure for judicial review is thus not designed to resolve complex
and often contested factual disputes over the quanti cation of damages
or the causation of loss. Accordingly, a person seeking compensation
for monetary loss caused by irregular administrative action would
ordinarily proceed by instituting an action for contractual or delictual
damages. Constitutional damages may also be sought under section 38
of the Constitution to vindicate the breach of constitutional rights
arising from irregular administrative action where there are no other
appropriate remedies available.123
Section 8(1)(c)(ii)(bb) of PAJA does, however, empower the court in
judicial review proceedings to award compensation upon setting aside
an irregular administrative act, but only ‘in exceptional cases’. In such
cases, the court may direct ‘the administrator or any other party to the
proceedings to pay compensation’.
Compensation under section 8 of PAJA is a public-law remedy,
which must be distinguished from private-law damages. As Moseneke J
noted in Steenkamp, the considerations that it attracts differ from those
that inform whether a breach of an administrative duty can give rise to
private-law delictual damages.124 Nevertheless, in applying section 8(1)
(c)(ii)(bb), the courts have had regard to the practical and policy
concerns that have informed the courts’ approach to delictual damages
for irregular administrative action.125
Since PAJA’s promulgation, there have been very few cases on
section 8(1)(c)(ii)(bb), and it is very rare for courts to award
compensation. In practice, it is also difficult to claim compensation for
delictual damages, particularly because courts have tended to nd that
irregularities in administrative law are not necessarily wrongful (in the
delictual sense).
In this section, we accordingly begin by discussing the courts’
approach to claims for delictual damages caused by unlawful
administrative action. We also examine the role of the law of unjusti ed
enrichment as a cause of action for compensation. ereafter, we
discuss the remedy of compensation under section 8 of PAJA and
constitutional damages.
Cameron J described the role of the special master, and addressed the
concern that the special master remedy breached the separation of
powers, as follows:
Special masters, often with expertise in specialist areas of government, may assist
with either devising a remedial plan or implementing it. In implementing a
remedy, the main task of a special master is to oversee and monitor – rather than
usurping performance of executive functions, which is closer to the functions of
other court-appointed officers (administrators or receivers, whose respective
tasks may be to supplement or replace management of a government institution).
…e Land Claims Court made clear that the special master remains an agent of
the Court, and acts in extension of the Court’s own supervisory jurisdiction. And
the Court alas made plain that the work to be done would alleviate its own
capacity constraints in overseeing the output of the Department. e
apprehension that the special master would be a complete outsider, reigning at
will over the Department with unfettered executive power loses sight of a key fact.
is is that the independence of the special master is not merely the detached
neutrality of a third party expert unaffiliated with the parties. It is rather an
extension of judicial independence, because it derives from appointment as an
agent of the court, continuingly subject to court control and authority.
While the powers afforded a special master certainly seem intrusive, this is only
because it is the Court itself that is exercising the constitutionally entrusted
powers to afford effective relief. It is not the Court authorising an outside,
unchecked body to intrude into the executive domain. It is the Court stepping in
to ensure that nationally critical land reform and restitution processes make
headway, 20 years after they should. In this way, the special master’s
independence is a product of the independence of the Court, to which he or she
remains subordinate.210
Another case where the court was found to have overstepped the line by
granting an interdict – this time a nal interdict – is National Director of
Public Prosecutions and Others v Freedom Under Law.229 e Supreme
Court of Appeal overturned a nal mandatory interdict granted by the
High Court, which ordered the National Director of Public Prosecutions
(NDPP) to reinstate all the charges against the suspended National
Commissioner of Crime Intelligence in the South African Police Service
(Mdluli), and to ensure that the prosecution of these charges were
enrolled and pursued without delay. e High Court further directed
the Commissioner of Police to reinstate disciplinary proceedings
against Mdluli and to take all steps necessary for the prosecution and
nalisation of these proceedings. e Supreme Court of Appeal found
that while the High Court had correctly reviewed and set aside the
unlawful decisions taken by the NDPP and Commissioner of Police, the
High Court ‘went too far’ and transgressed the separation of powers
doctrine in granting the interdictory relief. Writing for a unanimous
bench, Brand JA stated that:
In terms of the Constitution the NDPP is the authority mandated to prosecute
crime, while the Commissioner of Police is the authority mandated to manage
and control the SAPS … [T]he court will only be allowed to interfere with this
constitutional scheme on rare occasions and for compelling reasons. Suffice it to
say that in my view this is not one of those rare occasions and I can nd no
compelling reason why the executive authorities should not be given the
opportunity to perform their constitutional mandates in a proper way. e setting
aside of the withdrawal of the criminal charges and the disciplinary proceedings
have the effect that the charges and the proceedings are automatically reinstated
and it is for the executive authorities to deal with them. e court below went too
far.230
e remedies in section 8(2) of PAJA are not strictly necessary, since the
broad remedies for judicial review under section 8(1) of PAJA would
suffice. However, as Hoexter has pointed out, the clear statement of
these remedies is to be welcomed for their ease of application, and
especially seeing that administrative delay is a notorious feature of
South Africa’s administration.234
As is evident from the wording of section 8(2) of PAJA, its remedies
only apply once it is established that there is a reviewable failure to take
a decision in terms of section 6(3) of PAJA.235 Section 6(3) provides that
a failure to take a decision is reviewable where (i) an administrator has a
duty to take a decision; and (ii) where the empowering law does not
prescribe any period for the taking of the decision but the administrator
has delayed unreasonably in exercising the duty to take the decision
(section 6(3)(a)), or where the empowering law prescribes a period for
the taking of the decision and that period has passed without the
administrator having taken the decision (section 6(3)(b)).236
e rst question, then, is whether the impugned administrator has
a duty, as opposed to a power or a right, to take the decision. is
distinction was emphasised by the Supreme Court of Appeal in
Commissioner, South African Revenue Service v Trend Finance (Pty)
Limited and Another.237 e court found that the empowering provision
in question did not impose a duty on the Commissioner to take a
decision but only empowered the Commissioner to do so, and held on
this basis that the section 8(2) remedies did not apply.238
Where the empowering law prescribes the time period in which the
decision must be taken, then section 6(3)(b) of PAJA ipso facto entitles
the claimant to a just and equitable remedy under section 8(2) once
that period has passed. However, if no period is prescribed for the
taking of the decision, the applicant must show that the delay is
unreasonable. In this determination context is critical, as is evidenced
in the following two cases.
In Ruyobeza and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others,239
the High Court found that a three-month delay by the Standing
Committee on Refugee Affairs to decide an application for a certi cate
of inde nite refugee status was unreasonable. ring J emphasised the
following factors: the committee had ‘totally ignored’ the applicant’s
request for a certi cate for three months, despite a reminder; the
committee had given no satisfactory explanation for the delay; and the
delay had caused considerable prejudice to the applicant, who was
effectively prevented from working as a result.240
e case of Sibiya v Director-General: Home Affairs and Others and
55 Related Cases241 provides an instructive contrast to Ruyobeza, and
demonstrates the importance of establishing a proper factual basis for
showing that the administrator’s delay is unreasonable. In that case
fty-six matters were brought on review in the High Court in which the
applicants sought to compel the Department of Home Affairs to issue
each applicant with a bar-coded identity document. e applications
were brought on the ground that the Department had a duty to issue
bar-coded identity documents, and that a reasonable period of three
months had elapsed since the applications were lodged with the
Department, without any identity documents having been issued. e
period of three months was advanced as being a reasonable period of
time on the basis of what the applicants had allegedly been told when
their applications had been lodged. However, Wallis J rejected the
contention that, in all fty-six cases, a delay of longer than three months
was unreasonable. Wallis J noted that this presupposed that all
applications for the issue of an identity document were of precisely the
same type involving precisely the same issues, which was patently not
the case. Wallis J described the nature of the proper enquiry into
unreasonable delay as follows:
As the question of whether the department has delayed unreasonably in
attending to an application is a question of fact in my view if an applicant wishes
to satisfy a court that there has been unreasonable delay in dealing with their
application they must furnish sufficient particulars of their personal
circumstances and the nature of their application, so as to indicate on what basis
the reasonable period has been determined. Enough information must be
furnished to convey to the court the reasons why they contend that there has been
undue delay in dealing with their application and why they allege that the
department is in default. In other words their application must be tailored to their
own situation. While one must be cautious of applying statements made in the
wholly different context of what constitutes a reasonable time for performing a
contractual obligation in the different environment of administrative action it has
there been held that what is a reasonable time will depend amongst other things
on the particular circumstances surrounding the performance of the contractual
obligation in question, and the difficulties, obstacles and delays in performing
that were actually foreseen or would be foreseen by a reasonable person. It has
also been said that one is entitled to expect reasonably prompt and appropriate
action and due diligence on the part of the party obliged to perform. Suitably
adapted, these seem to me to be appropriate matters to take into account in
determining whether a reasonable time has passed after the lodging of an
application so that it can properly be contended that the department is in
default.242
Wallis J concluded that it was not apparent from the affidavits what
information had been made available to the Department in support of
each application for an identity document, and it was thus not possible
for the court to determine what a reasonable time was to complete the
process in each case. e application was accordingly dismissed as
fatally defective.243
Where there has been unreasonable delay causing prejudice to the
applicant, a just and equitable order may require more than the court
directing the administrator to take a decision. For instance, in
Mahambehlala v MEC for Welfare, Eastern Cape and Another,244 Leach J
ordered the Department of Welfare to retrospectively pay the applicant
a social welfare grant. e Department had failed, without explanation,
to process the applicant’s application for a grant for a period of nine
months. e court found that three months was a reasonable period for
processing the application, and ordered the Department to pay the
applicant the amounts she would have been paid if the grant had been
approved in three months – that is, backdated for six months, with
interest.245 While Leach J relied on section 38 of the Constitution in
granting this order, Leach J could equally have relied on section 8(2)(c)
of PAJA which affords the court a generous power to grant orders
‘directing any of the parties to do … any act or thing the doing … of
which the court or tribunal considers necessary to do justice between
the parties’.246 As discussed above, more sustained and systemic failures
to act may also attract structural interdicts or other creative remedies
(such as, in the most severe cases, the appointment of a special master).
12.12.1 Severance
Severance is a remedy associated with the correction of illegalities in
legislation and subordinate legislation (the latter of which is a species of
administrative action).247 It entails the separation and setting aside of
only the invalid portions of the legislation, where this is possible to
achieve without affecting the valid portions and objects of the
legislation. e requirements for the application of this remedy were
stated by Centlivres CJ in Johannesburg City Council v Chester eld
House (Pty) Ltd:248
e rule … is that where it is possible to separate the good from the bad in a
Statute and the good is not dependent on the bad, then that part of the Statute
which is good must be given effect to, provided that what remains carries out the
main object of the Statute … Where, however, the task of separating the bad from
the good is of such complication that it is impracticable to do so, the whole
Statute must be declared ultra vires. In such a case it naturally follows that it is
impossible to presume that the legislature intended to pass the Statute in what
may prove to be a highly truncated form …249
12.13 Costs
Under section 8(1)(f) of PAJA, the court’s remedial discretion to make
any order that is just and equitable includes ‘any order as to costs’. e
court thus retains the discretion it enjoys under the common law: the
award of costs is wholly in the discretion of the court, provided that the
discretion is exercised ‘judicially’, that is honestly and reasonably.265
ere are, however, two respects in which the exercise of the court’s
discretion on costs in judicial review proceedings differs from the
general common-law approach.
e rst distinguishing feature is that judicial review is a form of
constitutional litigation.266 As a result, the principles on costs that
govern constitutional litigation must be applied.267 e locus classicus
on costs in constitutional litigation involving the state is the
Constitutional Court’s judgment in Biowatch Trust v Registrar, Genetic
Resources and Others.268
In that case the Constitutional Court held that, where the state is
shown to have failed to ful l its constitutional and statutory obligations,
and where different private parties are affected, the general rule is that:
(i) the state should bear the costs of litigants who have been successful
against it, and (ii) ordinarily there should be no costs orders against any
private litigants who have become involved.269 e Constitutional Court
explained the threefold rationale for this rule as follows:
… In the rst place it diminishes the chilling effect that adverse costs orders
would have on parties seeking to assert constitutional rights. Constitutional
litigation frequently goes through many courts and the costs involved can be high.
Meritorious claims might not be proceeded with because of a fear that failure
could lead to nancially ruinous consequences. Similarly, people might be
deterred from pursuing constitutional claims because of a concern that even if
they succeed they will be deprived of their costs because of some inadvertent
procedural or technical lapse. Secondly, constitutional litigation, whatever the
outcome, might ordinarily bear not only on the interests of the particular litigants
involved, but also on the rights of all those in similar situations. Indeed, each
constitutional case that is heard enriches the general body of constitutional
jurisprudence and adds texture to what it means to be living in a constitutional
democracy. irdly, it is the State that bears primary responsibility for ensuring
that both the law and State conduct are consistent with the Constitution. If there
should be a genuine, non-frivolous challenge to the constitutionality of a law or of
State conduct, it is appropriate that the State should bear the costs if the challenge
is good, but if it is not, then the losing non-State litigant should be shielded from
the costs consequences of failure. In this way responsibility for ensuring that the
law and State conduct are constitutional is placed at the correct door.270
In making costs awards, the court must also be guided by any special
provisions on costs in the applicable legislation. For example, sections
32(2) and (3) of the National Environmental Management Act281 contain
special provisions on costs awards for environmental litigation, and
provide that a court may decide not to award costs against unsuccessful
litigants who are acting in the public interest or to protect the
environment and who had made due efforts to use other means for
obtaining the relief.
The main remedies that the courts grant are first, declaring the irregular
administrative action invalid and, second setting it aside and remitting (or sending
it back) to the administrator to take the decision afresh. This is the default
approach. However, courts may grant an exceptional remedy such as suspending
the declaration of invalidity and declining to set the decision aside; substituting the
administrative action (where a court makes the decision itself, instead of remitting
it to the administrator); or granting compensation (monetary relief).
FURTHER READING
• Boonzaier, L (2018) A Decision to Undo SALJ 135(4):642
• Cilliers, AC; Loots, C & Nel, HC (2009) Herbstein & Van Winsen: The Civil
Practice of the High Courts of South Africa (5th ed) Vol 2, 1456–1482
• De Beer, MN (2018) A New Role for the Principle of Legality in Administrative
Law SALJ 135(4):613
• Forsyth, C ‘The Metaphysic of Nullity’: Invalidity, Conceptual Reasoning and the
Rule of Law in Forsyth C & Hare, I (Eds) (1998) The Golden Metwand and the
Crooked Cord: Essays in Honour of Sir William Wade QC Oxford: OUP
• Forsyth, C (2006) The Theory of the Second Actor Revisited Acta Juridica 209
• Mandlana, W (2008) Effective Remedies and Obedience to Court Orders
Central to the Rule of Law: An Examination of the Judicial Approach Speculum
Juris 22:14
• Plasket, C (2000) Protecting the Public Purse: Appropriate Relief and Cost
Orders Against Public Officials SALJ 117(1):151
• Quinot, G (2008) Worse than Losing a Government Tender: Winning It
Stellenbosch Law Review 19:101–121
• Roach, K & Budlender, G (2005) Mandatory Relief and Supervisory
Jurisdiction: When is it Appropriate, Just and Equitable? SALJ 122(2):325
• Quinot, G & Van der Sijde, E (2019) Opening at the Close: Clarity from the
Constitutional Court on the Legal Cause of Action and Regulatory Framework
for an Organ of State Seeking to Review its Own Decisions? TSAR 2:324
• Taylor, H (2019) Forcing the Court’s Remedial Hand: Non-Compliance as a
Catalyst for Remedial Innovation Constitutional Court Review IX:247
• Van Loggerenberg, DE; Bishop, M & Brickhill, J (2014) Erasmus: Superior
Courts Practice (Revision Service 45) Appendix E8: Interdicts at 1–15
1 3 of 2000.
2 Steenkamp NO v Provincial Tender Board, Eastern Cape 2007 (3) SA 121 (CC) para 22.
3 1997 (3) SA 786 (CC) para 69.
4 Steenkamp para 29.
5 Steenkamp paras 29–30. See also Allpay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd and
Others v Chief Executive Officer, South African Social Security Agency and Others 2014 (4) SA
179 (CC) (remedy judgment) (‘Allpay (remedy)’) paras 29–34.
6 Steenkamp para 29.
7 Steenkamp para 30; Bengwenyama Minerals (Pty) Ltd and Others v Genorah Resources (Pty)
Ltd and Others 2011 (4) SA 113 (CC) para 83.
8 Section 8(1) of PAJA provides:
(1) e court or tribunal, in proceedings for judicial review in terms of section 6(1),
may grant any order that is just and equitable, including orders-
(a) directing the administrator-
(i) to give reasons; or
(ii) to act in the manner the court or tribunal requires;
(b) prohibiting the administrator from acting in a particular manner;
(c) setting aside the administrative action and-
(i) remitting the matter for reconsideration by the administrator, with or
without directions; or
(ii) in exceptional cases-
(aa) substituting or varying the administrative action or correcting a
defect resulting from the administrative action; or
(bb) directing the administrator or any other party to the proceedings
to pay compensation;
(d) declaring the rights of the parties in respect of any matter to which the
administrative action relates;
(e) granting a temporary interdict or other temporary relief; or
(f) as to costs.
9 Bengwenyama Minerals paras 81–85; Allpay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd
and Others v Chief Executive Officer, South African Social Security Agency and Others 2014
(1) SA 604 (CC) (merits judgment) (‘Allpay (merits)’) para 56; Allpay (remedy) para 31.
10 See Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of SA and Another: In Re Ex Parte President
of the Republic of South Africa and Others 2000 (2) SA 674 (CC) paras 44–45 and 51; Bato
Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Others 2004 (4) SA 490 (CC)
para 22.
11 As discussed in Hoexter, C (2012) Administrative Law in South Africa (2nd ed) at 127–131, it
remains a matter of some debate whether the judicial review of private power is a
constitutional matter or involves only the application of the common law. However, the
judicial review of private power is rare, and so is not considered further in this chapter.
12 is follows from section 172(1) of the Constitution and the doctrine of objective
constitutional invalidity. See the discussion box at section 12.4.3 below for an explanation
of the doctrine of objective constitutional invalidity. See also Ferreira v Levin NO and
Others; Vryenhoek and Others v Powell NO and Others 1996 (1) SA 984 (CC) paras 27–28; Ex
Parte Women’s Legal Centre, In Re Moise v Greater Germiston Transitional Local Council
2001 (4) SA 1288 (CC) paras 11–13.
13 Oudekraal Estates para 26; MEC for Health, Eastern Cape and Another v Kirland
Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Eye and Lazer Institute 2014 (3) SA 481 (CC) para 100.
14 Kirland para 102, fn 74; Seale v Van Rooyen NO and Others; Provincial Government, North
West Province v Van Rooyen NO and Others 2008 (4) SA 43 (SCA) paras 13–14; Corruption
Watch NPC and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others; Nxasana v
Corruption Watch NPC and Others 2018 (10) BCLR 1179 (CC) paras 31–34.
15 2008 (2) SA 481 (SCA) para 23.
16 2004 (6) SA 222 (SCA) para 36.
17 We discuss this case in more detail below at 12.5.1.
18 Oudekraal Estates para 39. To explain this effect, the SCA quoted and relied on Christopher
Forsyth, ‘e Metaphysic of Nullity: Invalidity, Conceptual Reasoning and the Rule of Law’
in Essays on Public Law in Honour of Sir William Wade QC at 141. e following passage by
Forsyth (at 159) is quoted at paragraph 29 of the Oudekraal Estates judgment, and neatly
sums up the principle:
[I]t has been argued that unlawful administrative acts are void in law. But they clearly
exist in fact and they often appear to be valid; and those unaware of their invalidity
may take decisions and act on the assumption that these acts are valid. When this
happens the validity of these later acts depends upon the legal powers of the second
actor. e crucial issue to be determined is whether that second actor has legal power
to act validly notwithstanding the invalidity of the rst act …
19 Magni cent Mile Trading 30 (Pty) Limited v Charmaine Celliers NO and Others 2020 (1)
BCLR 41 (CC).
20 Magni cent Mile para 43.
21 1996 (1) SA 984 (CC).
22 Kruger v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others 2009 (1) SA 417 (CC) para 52.
23 2011 (2) SA 473 (CC).
24 Oudekraal Estates para 36:
[A] court that is asked to set aside an invalid administrative act in proceedings for
judicial review has a discretion whether to grant or to withhold the remedy.
25 Hoexter (2012) 545.
26 See, for example, Johannesburg Consolidated Investment Co v Johannesburg Town Council
1903 TS 111 at 115, where Innes CJ held:
Whenever a public body has a duty imposed on it by statute, and disregards important
provisions of the statute, or is guilty of gross irregularity or clear illegality in the
performance of the duty, this Court may be asked to review the proceedings
complained of and set aside or correct them. is is no special machinery created by
the Legislature; it is a right inherent in the Court, which has jurisdiction to entertain all
civil causes and proceedings arising …
See further, Baxter, L (1984) Administrative Law 678.
27 Allpay (remedy) para 30. See also Steenkamp para 29:
e purpose of a public-law remedy is to pre-empt or correct or reverse an improper
administrative function…
28 Allpay (remedy) para 67.
29 2007 (3) SA 121 (CC).
30 Corruption Watch (NPC) (RF) v Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social Services
and Others [2018] ZAGPPHC 7.
31 Cash Paymaster Services (Pty) Ltd v Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social
Security Agency and Others [2019] 4 All SA 327 (SCA).
32 Under the common law, the rebuttable presumption of validity of administrative acts is
expressed in the common-law maxim omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta. See Baxter (1984)
355ff.
33 See Oudekraal Estates para 26.
34 Kirland paras 65–66 and 100–103.
35 Magni cent Mile para 50.
36 Kirland para 103.
37 Oudekraal Estates para 26.
38 Kirland para 103.
39 Oudekraal Estates paras 26 and 40.
40 Kirland para 65.
41 Kirland paras 40–44, 46, 60–61.
42 See, for example, the majority judgments of the Constitutional Court in Kirland;
Magni cent Mile; Merafong City Local Municipality v AngloGold Ashanti Limited 2017 (2)
SA 211 (CC); and Department of Transport v Tasima (Pty) Limited 2017 (2) SA 622 (CC).
43 e ‘collateral challenge’ is discussed in Oudekraal Estates paras 32–36; see also Baxter
(1984) 359. More recently, see Merafong and Tasima.
44 Oudekraal Estates para 32.
45 Oudekraal Estates para 34.
46 Oudekraal Estates para 36.
47 Merafong paras 26–30, 55. e minority (per Jafta J) agreed on this point, and found there
was no reason of principle to preclude the state from raising a collateral challenge where it
faces a claim that it must comply with an illegal decision: paras 100–106.
48 Merafong paras 59–61, 76–77.
49 Tasima para 140.
50 Tasima para 150.
51 Tasima paras 163–171.
52 Section 237 of the Constitution.; Merafong paras 59–61; Khumalo and Another v Member of
the Executive Council for Education: KwaZulu Natal 2014 (5) SA 579 (CC) para 46.
53 2008 (2) SA 638 (SCA).
54 2009 (4) SA 628 (SCA).
55 New Reclamation Group para 16.
56 New Reclamation Group para 14.
57 2010 (4) SA 359 (SCA).
58 Moseme para 20.
59 Moseme para 21.
60 2008 (2) SA 481 (SCA).
61 Millennium Waste paras 25–30.
62 e court acknowledged, however, that it was unable to assess why the differential in
bidding price was so large, and it was left to speculate as to whether setting aside the
contract at that stage would result in cost savings.
63 Jafta JA explained the effect of the order at paragraph 32 as follows:
[It] vindicates the appellant’s rights to the full while it prevents the potential for
disruption to the service, and it avoids unwarranted loss to the public purse. It might
end up that the consortium suffers loss – that will occur only if appellant’s tender is
accepted and even then commercial considerations that minimise the loss might
come into play – but that is inevitable if we are to accommodate the potential loss to
the public purse. It seems to me that such an order promises no loss to the public
purse and an uninterrupted service. And if it turns out that the consortium has indeed
been pro teering excessively and loses the contract as a result, then any loss that it
might suffer does not weigh heavily with me. e order envisaged here maintains a
balance between the parties’ con icting interests while taking into account the public
interest.
ere is a conceptual problem with the order. While the court declared the tender award to
64 be invalid, it did not suspend the declaration of invalidity. However, this was clearly the
intent, as the court made the setting aside of the tender award conditional on the re-
evaluation of the bids resulting in a different decision. A suspension of the declaration of
invalidity must thus be taken to be implied in the order.
65 Allpay (merits); Allpay (remedy).
66 e only tender case previously before the Constitutional Court, Steenkamp, concerned a
delictual claim following the setting aside of a tender award. e Constitutional Court did
consider the merits of the review nor whether the setting aside of that tender was just and
equitable.
67 Allpay (merits) paras 23–27.
68 Allpay (remedy) para 37.
69 Froneman J explained the ‘practical approach’ adopted in the order at para 40:
We acknowledge that we are not in a position to determine what the effect of making a
new tender award will be on a number of interests. ese include: the ability of other
potential tenderers to make truly competitive bids; whether a new system will
necessarily disrupt existing payments; whether SASSA will be able to run the
administration and payment of social grants independently at the time envisaged; and
what advantages Cash Paymaster may derive from its incumbency. A new tender
process will make it possible for SASSA to have more information available to it when
it makes a decision whether to award a new tender at the end of the process. It is true
that this will come at some cost, between R5 million and R10 million at current
estimates, but in the context of the vast sums involved, and considering the potential
for a more cost-effective solution, this is a justi able price to pay to ensure that the rule
of law and the demands of transparency and accountability are met.
70 Khumalo; Kirland; Tasima; City of Cape Town v Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd 2017 (4) SA
223 (CC); State Information Technology Agency SOC Limited v Gijima Holdings (Pty)
Limited 2018 (2) SA 23 (CC); and Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality v Asla
Construction (Pty) Limited 2019 (4) SA 331 (CC).
71 2018 (2) SA 23 (CC).
72 2019 (4) SA 331 (CC).
73 Boonzaier, L (2018) A Decision to Undo SALJ 135(4):642; De Beer, MN (2018) A New Role
for the Principle of Legality in Administrative Law SALJ 135(4):613; Quinot, G & van der
Sijde, E (2019) Opening at the Close: Clarity from the Constitutional Court on the Legal
Cause of Action and Regulatory Framework for an Organ of State Seeking to Review its Own
Decisions? TSAR 2:324.
74 is nding, in particular, has been criticised. See Chapter 11 section 11.2.5.
75 At para 54.
76 At para 66.
77 At para 105.
78 See especially paras 129–133; 147–149.
79 At para 127.
80 At para 139.
81 Gauteng Gambling Board v Silverstar Development Ltd and Others 2005 (4) SA 67 (SCA)
para 29. See also Bato Star Fishing paras 46–49; Logbro Properties CC v Bedderson NO and
Others 2003 (2) SA 460 (SCA) para 21; Trencon Construction (Pty) Ltd v Industrial
Development Corporation of South Africa Limited 2015 (5) SA 245 (CC) paras 43–46.
82 2007 (6) SA 442 (Ck) para 46.
83 Allpay (merits) para 42.
84 2013 (6) SA 235 (SCA).
85 Clairison’s para 18.
86 Section 8(1)(c)(i) provides for orders
(c) setting aside the administrative action and– (i) remitting the matter for
reconsideration by the administrator, with or without directions. (Emphasis
added).
87 2003 (2) SA 460.
88 Logbro Properties paras 20–21. Cameron JA went on to nd (at paras 23–25) that procedural
fairness required the committee to afford the compliant tenderers an opportunity to make
written representations on the signi cance of the change in property value before the
committee decided to recommend re-advertisement. On this basis, Cameron JA set aside
the decision to re-advertise and remitted the matter to the committee to allow for such
representations to be made before a new decision was taken.
89 Section 8(1)(c)(ii)(aa) of PAJA.
90 For a discussion of the common-law position, see Baxter (1984) 681–685 and Trencon
Construction v IDC paras 36–39.
91 Silverstar paras 28–29.
92 Trencon Construction v IDC para 42.
93 Trencon Construction v IDC paras 35, 47, 53.
94 Trencon Construction v IDC para 47.
95 Baxter (1984) 681–685. See also Hoexter (2012) 553–557. See these same guidelines
recognised in University of the Western Cape and Others v Member of Executive Committee
for Health and Social Services and Others 1998 (3) SA 124 (C) at 131D–J; Ruyobeza and
Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others 2003 (5) SA 51 (C) at 64G.
96 M v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (6871/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 649 (22 August
2014) paras 177–179; Silverstar paras 38–39; eron en Andere v Ring van Wellington van
die NG Sendingkerk in Suid-Afrika en Andere 1976 (2) SA 1 (A).
97 See, for example, Hangklip Environmental Action Group v MEC for Agriculture,
Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Western Cape and Others 2007 (6) SA 65
(C); Silverstar paras 38–39.
98 M v Minister of Home Affairs and Others paras 175–176; ICS Pension Fund v Sithole and
Others NNO 2010 (3) SA 419 (T) para 97; Head, Western Cape Education Department and
Others v Governing Body, Point High School and Others 2008 (5) SA 18 (SCA) para 17;
Ruyobeza at 65D–H.
99 M v Minister of Home Affairs and Others paras 170–174; Mlokoti v Amathole District
Municipality and Another 2009 (6) SA 354 (E) at 380I–381B; Tantoush v Refugee Appeal
Board 2008 (1) SA 232 (T) para 127; Minister of Local Government and Land Tenure v
Inkosinathi Property Developers (Pty) Ltd and Another 1992 (2) SA 234 (TkA); Mahlaela v
De Beer NO 1986 (4) SA 782 (T) at 794–795; Essack v Durban City Council 1953 (4) SA 17 (N)
at 23.
100 2015 (5) SA 245 (CC).
101 Trencon Construction v IDC para 47.
102 Trencon Construction v IDC paras 47–51.
103 2007 (6) SA 442 (Ck).
104 Intertrade Two para 43.
105 See Baxter (1984) 684; Commissioner, Competition Commission v General Council of the Bar
of South Africa and Others 2002 (6) SA 606 (SCA) para 15; Minister of Trade and Industry v
Sundays River Citrus Company (Pty) Ltd [2020] 1 All SA 635 (SCA) paras 23–27. See also
Masamba v Chairperson, Western Cape Regional Committee, Immigrants Selection Board
2001 (12) BCLR 1239 (C) at 1259H–1260E; and Ruyobeza at 65F–H.
106 Silverstar paras 38–39.
107 Silverstar para 39.
108 Trencon Construction v IDC para 58.
109 Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Limited v Trencon Construction (Pty)
Ltd [2014] 4 All SA 561 (SCA) paras 18–19.
110 Trencon Construction v IDC paras 62–65.
111 Trencon Construction v IDC paras 68–71.
112 Trencon Construction v IDC para 73.
113 Trencon Construction v IDC para 74.
114 Westinghouse Electric Belgium Societe Anonyme v Eskom Holdings (Soc) Ltd and Another
2016 (3) SA 1 (SCA).
115 Westinghouse paras 76–78
116 M v Minister of Home Affairs and Others paras 170–176.
117 M v Minister of Home Affairs and Others paras 170–179.
118 Tshiyombo v Refugee Appeal Board and Others 2016 (4) SA 469 (WCC) at para 46.
119 At paras 43–45.
120 At para 46. See further: Ruyobiza and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others 2003
(5) SA 51 (C) at 65C–H; Tantoush v Refugee Appeal Board 2008 (1) SA 232 (T). See also Jose
and Another v e Minister of Home Affairs and Others 2019 (4) SA 597 (GP), where the
High Court ordered the Minister of Home Affairs to grant the applicants citizenship; and
Gavri v Refugee Status Determination Officer, Cape Town and Others 2019 (1) SA 21 (CC),
where the Constitutional Court substituted a decision of the Refugee Status Determination
Offer to refuse an application for refugee status.
121 Allpay (remedy) para 68.
122 Hoexter (2012) 520ff. See also Steenkamp paras 29–30.
123 Whether constitutional damages can be sought for an infringement only of the right to just
administrative action is open to contestation. See discussion at section 12.9.3 below.
124 Steenkamp para 31. See, more recently, Home Talk Developments (Pty) Ltd v Ekurhuleni
Metropolitan Municipality 2018 (1) SA 391 (SCA), and Odi n (Pty) Ltd v Reynecke 2018 (1)
SA 153 (SCA) – two cases where the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed delictual claims
for pure economic loss on the basis that the breaches of statutory duties were wrongful (in
the delictual sense).
125 See Darson Construction (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town and Another 2007 (4) SA 488 (C) at
504I–505E; De Jong and Others v e Trustees of the Simcha Trust and Another 2014 (4) SA
73 (WCC) para 25.
126 De Jong para 25.
127 South African Post Office v De Lacy and Another 2009 (5) SA 255 (SCA) para 4; Minister of
Finance and Others v Gore NO 2007 (1) SA 111 (SCA) para 10; Steenkamp para 56;
Telematrix (Pty) Ltd t/a Matrix Vehicle Tracking v Advertising Standards Authority SA 2006
(1) SA 461 (SCA) para 26.
128 2001 (3) SA 1247 (SCA).
129 Sections 187 and 24 of the interim Constitution respectively. Cameron JA considered
delictual damages as a form of ‘appropriate relief’ under section 7(4)(a) of the interim
Constitution (the predecessor to section 38 of the nal Constitution) for breach of the right
to administrative justice. Section 7(4)(a) empowered the court to grant ‘appropriate relief’
for an infringement or threat to any fundamental right under Chapter 3 of the interim
Constitution.
130 Olitzki Property Holdings para 30.
131 Olitzki Property Holdings para 41, citing Ackermann in Fose at para 72. See also the
endorsement of Cameron JA’s reasoning on this point by the Constitutional Court in
Steenkamp per Moseneke DCJ at para 40 and per Langa CJ and O’Regan J at paras 79–81.
132 Olitzki Property Holdings para 42.
133 2007 (3) SA 121 (CC).
134 At paras 42–55.
135 e reliance that Moseneke DCJ placed on the availability of alternative remedies (at paras
48–50) was strongly contested in the dissenting judgment of Langa CJ and O’Regan J.
Moseneke DCJ found that the successful tenderer had alternative remedies as it could re-
tender upon remittal and the running of a fresh tender and, upon the tender award, it could
have negotiated that the right to restitution of out-of-pocket expenses upon a setting aside
of the tender was included in its contract. Langa CJ and O’Regan J disputed both proposed
alternative remedies, at paras 88–89. In respect of the rst, they observed that unlike the
unsuccessful tenderer, the successful tenderer ‘cannot challenge the tender award by way
of judicial review nor may it seek to have its validity con rmed’. Moreover, if the tender is
repeated, while the successful tenderer may enter the race for the tender again, even if the
successful tenderer is again successful, ‘it still may not receive reimbursement for out-of-
pocket expenses incurred the rst time around’. And if it is unsuccessful in the next round,
‘it certainly will not have those expenses reimbursed’. As regards the second proposed
alternative remedy, Langa CJ and O’Regan J noted that there was no evidence led on this
issue, and expressed skepticism as to whether a successful tenderer is indeed able to
demand terms in its contract with government which protect its interests in the event of the
tender award being set aside.
136 Steenkamp at para 55(a), citing Telematrix at paras 13–14. Telematrix concerned a delictual
claim against an incorrect decision by the Advertising Standards Authority. e Supreme
Court of Appeal further described the public policy considerations requiring immunity of
adjudicators at paras 26–28:
[P]ublic policy considerations require that adjudicators of disputes are immune to
damages claims in respect of their incorrect and negligent decisions. e overriding
consideration has always been that, by the very nature of the adjudication process,
rights will be affected and that the process will bog down unless decisions can be
made without fear of damages claims, something that must impact on the
independence of the adjudicator. Decisions made in bad faith are, however, unlawful
and can give rise to damages claims.
137 Steenkamp paras 42 and 55 (citing the SCA judgment a quo).
138 Steenkamp para 75.
139 Steenkamp para 84.
140 Steenkamp para 92.
141 Steenkamp paras 82 and 94.
142 Steenkamp para 83.
143 Steenkamp para 86. On this point, see however Country Cloud Trading CC v MEC,
Department of Infrastructure Development, Gauteng 2015 (1) SA 1 (CC) paras 44–50, where
the Constitutional Court declined to impose delictual liability for pure economic loss solely
on the basis of a norm of accountability.
144 2005 (1) SA 299 (SCA).
145 2007 (1) SA 111 (SCA).
146 Gore paras 88 and 90.
147 In Steenkamp para 30, Moseneke J stated that ‘[i]t is unnecessary to speculate on when
cases are exceptional. at question will have to be left to the speci c context of each case’.
148 2014 (4) SA 73 (WCC).
149 e Trustees of the Simcha Trust and Another v De Jong and Others 2015 (4) SA 229 (SCA)
paras 27–28.
150 Walele v City of Cape Town and Others 2008 (6) SA 129 (CC).
151 Section 8(1)(c) reads, with emphasis added:
e court or tribunal, in proceedings for judicial review in terms of section 6(1), may
grant any order that is just and equitable, including orders –
…
(c) setting aside the administrative action and –
(i) remitting the matter for reconsideration by the administrator, with or
without directions; or
(ii) in exceptional cases –
(aa) substituting or varying the administrative action or correcting a
defect resulting from the administrative action; or
(bb) directing the administrator or any other party to the proceedings
to pay compensation …
152 De Jong para 19.
153 De Jong para 21.
154 De Jong para 22.
155 De Jong para 23.
156 De Jong paras 26–28.
157 2007 (4) SA 488 (C).
158 Darson Construction at 502F–G.
159 Darson Construction at 502J–503F.
160 Selikowitz J reasoned at 510E–G as follows:
I am, however, satis ed that applicant is entitled to some compensation for the
manner in which rst respondent breached its right to administrative justice. Having
regard to the facts of this matter it is clear that applicant responded - at a cost - to the
invitation to tender, only to have its tender considered by an unauthorised
administrator - the Supply Chain Management Committee. Applicant deserved far
better from rst respondent.
161 De Jong para 26.
162 2007 (6) SA 52 (SCA).
163 Dunn v Minister of Defence and Others 2006 (2) SA 107 (T). Whether the court a quo’s order
– of compensation without setting aside – is permitted under section 8(1)(c) of PAJA is not
clear, however. On the construction of section 8(1)(c), as discussed in De Jong, an order of
compensation may have to follow an order that sets aside unlawful administrative action.
164 Minister of Defence and Others v Dunn 2007 (6) SA 52 (SCA) para 33.
165 Minister of Defence v Dunn paras 38–40.
166 In Darson Construction at 502C–D, Selikowitz J opined that the interpretation and
application of the phase ‘in exceptional cases’ under section 8(1)(c)(ii)(bb) would require
the presence of different factors from that in section 8(1)(c)(ii)(aa). However, Selikowitz J
declined to attempt to de ne the phrase and expressed the view that it is undesirable to do
so as ‘each case will need to be assessed on its own facts’.
167 De Jong para 24.
168 De Jong para 24.
169 Minister of Defence v Dunn para 40. See also Darson Construction at 509F–510D.
170 Minister of Defence v Dunn para 39. However, the SCA’s ndings on compensation were
obiter.
171 City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v RPM Bricks Proprietary Ltd 2008 (3) SA 1
(SCA) para 25.
172 Nortje v Pool NO 1966 (3) SA 96 (A) 134G. See also Pucljowski v Johnston’s Executors 1946
WLD 1 at 6.
173 Benedetti v Sawiris & Ors [2013] UKSC 50.
174 [2013] UKSC 50.
175 Benedetti v Sawiris & Ors, majority judgment per Lord Clarke, at para 34.
176 McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC 2001 (3) SA 482 (SCA) paras 8–10. See also
the minority judgment of Ogilvie ompson JA in Nortje v Pool.
177 Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality v Maluti Plant Hire 2017 JDR 0401 (FB) paras 33–36
(full bench decision); and Special New Fruit Licensing Limited and Others v Colours Fruit
(South Africa) (Pty) Limited and Others [2019] ZAWCHC 83 paras 143–147.
178 2017 JDR 0401 (FB).
179 Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality v Maluti Plant Hire paras 30–33 and 37.
180 [2019] ZAWCHC 83.
181 Rural Maintenance (Pty) Ltd v Maluti a-Phofong Local Municipality [2019] ZAFSHC 186.
182 Rural Maintenance at paras 29–30, 36–41.
183Allpay (remedy) para 67, read with footnote 47.
184Shabangu v Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa 2020 (1) SA 305
(CC) paras 26–28.
185 MEC, Department of Welfare, Eastern Cape v Kate 2006 (4) SA 478 (SCA) paras 22–33.
186 2006 (4) SA 478 (SCA).
187 Kate para 22.
188 Reported at http://www.sa ii.org/images/LifeEsidimeniArbitrationAward.pdf
189 is part of the award read:
e Government is ordered to pay R1 000 000 (one million rand) to each of the
claimants listed in Annexures A, B and C as appropriate relief and compensation for
the Government’s unjusti able and reckless breaches of section 1(a), (c) and (d),
section 7, section 10, section 12(1)(d) and (e), section 27(1)(a) and (b) and section
195(1) (a), (b), (d), (e), (f) and (g) and multiple contraventions of the National Health
Act 61 of 2003 and the Mental Health Care Act 17 of 2002 that caused the death of 144
mental health care users and the pain, suffering and torture of 1418 mental health care
users who survived and their families.
190 Fose v Minister of Safety and Security 1997 (3) SA 786 (CC) para 60.
191 2004 (2) SA 611 (SCA).
192 In Jayiya, Conradie JA explained at para 9 that:
As appears from its preamble the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act was passed
by Parliament to give effect to the constitutional guarantee of just administrative
action. e appellant should accordingly have sought her remedy in this Act.
‘Constitutional damages’ in the sense discussed in Fose v Minister of Safety and
Security … might be awarded as appropriate relief where no statutory remedies have
been given or no adequate common-law remedies exist. Where the lawgiver has
legislated statutory mechanisms for securing constitutional rights, and provided, of
course, that they are constitutionally unobjectionable, they must be used. e
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act does not provide for the kind of relief afforded
to the appellant in paras 2(c) and 3 of the order. Instead, it provides in s 8(1)(c)(ii)(bb)
that a Court may in proceedings for judicial review, exceptionally, direct an
administrator to pay compensation.
193 Kate para 27.
194 Kate para 27. However, see the Supreme Court of Appeal’s judgment in Komape v Minister
of Basic Education [2019] ZASCA 192, which considered whether constitutional damages
should be awarded to the family of Michael Komape, a ve-year-old learner who drowned
in a pit latrine at his school in Limpopo. e Supreme Court of Appeal awarded his family
delictual damages but not constitutional damages, holding that where claimants have been
fully compensated for loss sustained and public funds are better served elsewhere,
constitutional damages generally should not be awarded.
195 Steenkamp para 39; Premier, Western Cape v Faircape Property Developers (Pty) Ltd 2003
(6) SA 13 (SCA) para 40; Minister of Safety and Security v Van Duivenboden 2002 (6) SA 431
(SCA) para 21.
196 In this regard, Harms JA observed in Steenkamp NO v Provincial Tender Board, Eastern
Cape 2006 (3) SA 151 (SCA) at para 39:
e importance of accountability as a public policy factor serving a constitutional
imperative has more than once been underscored by this Court, but, as counsel
ruefully mentioned, it has never carried the day by imposing delictual liability.
197 Fose paras 71–72; see also Olitzki Property Holdings para 41.
198 On the remedies under section 8(2) of PAJA, see below at section 12.11.
199 On section 172(1)(a) of the Constitution, see above at section 12.3. It requires that the court
must declare ‘any law or conduct that is inconsistent with the Constitution’ to be invalid to
the extent of its inconsistency. It is a special constitutional provision, different to the
common-law rules governing the grant of declaratory orders. For a discussion of the
differences between the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant declaratory relief and
section 172 of the Constitution, see Islamic Unity Convention v Independent Broadcasting
Authority and Others 2002 (4) SA 294 (CC) paras 8–12 and National Director of Public
Prosecutions and Another v Mohamed NO and Others 2003 (4) SA 1 (CC) paras 55–56.
200 2005 (2) SA 359 (CC).
201 Rail Commuters para 107.
202 Hoexter (2012) 558.
203 Rail Commuters para 108.
204 Black Sash Trust v Minister of Social Development 2017 (3) SA 335 (CC) (‘Black Sash I’).
205 [2014] ZAECGHC 111.
206 2015 (2) SA 413 (SCA).
207 At para 35.
208 2019 (6) SA 597 (CC).
209 At paras 40–42.
210 At paras 58–62.
211 e requirements for an interdict are discussed only brie y below. For a full discussion see
Cilliers, AC, Loots, C & Nel, HC, Herbstein & Van Winsen: e Civil Practice of the High
Courts of South Africa (5th ed) Vol 2 at 1456–1482; and Van Loggerenberg, Erasmus:
Superior Courts Practice (Revision Service 45, 2014), Appendix E8: Interdicts at 1–15.
212 In such cases, a two-part application is typically brought, with Part A setting out the basis
for the interim interdict and Part B setting out the grounds for the review. Part A will be
heard rst, and if granted, the interim interdict will operate pending the outcome of the
review application in Part B.
213 Setlogelo v Setlogelo 1914 AD 221; Webster v Mitchell 1948 (1) SA 1186 (W).
214 2012 (6) SA 223 (CC).
215 Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance para 50. See also the discussion in Economic Freedom
Fighters v Gordhan and Others; Public Protector and Another v Gordhan and Others [2020]
ZACC 10 (29 May 2020) paras 24 and 65.
216 National Council of Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Openshaw 2008 (5)
SA 339 (SCA) at 347D–E.
217 Openshaw at 347E–F.
218 Olympic Passenger Service (Pty) Ltd v Ramlagan 1957 (2) SA 382 (D) at 383F–G.
219 1987 (4) SA 343 (T).
220 See United Technical Equipment at 346B–G. See further Transvaal Property & Investment Co
Ltd and Reinhold & Co Ltd v SA Townships Mining & Finance Corporation Ltd & the
Administrator 1938 TPD 512 at 521.
221 Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance paras 47 and 66.
222 Gool v Minister of Justice and Another 1955 (2) SA 682 (C); Molteno Brothers and Others
Appellants v South African Railways and Others Respondents 1936 AD 321 at 329 and 331.
223 Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance paras 47 and 90.
224 See Gool; Molteno Brothers; Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance paras 47 and 66.
225 2012 (4) SA 618 (CC).
226 SCAW para 101.
227 SCAW para 45.
228 SCAW paras 47, 63–67.
229 2014 (4) SA 298 (SCA).
230 Freedom Under Law para 51.
231 President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v United Democratic Movement 2003
(1) SA 472 (CC) (‘UDM’).
232 UDM para 28.
233 UDM para 32.
234 Hoexter (2012) 567.
235 Section 6(3) of PAJA must be read with section 6(2)(g) of PAJA, which establishes the
ground of review ‘that the action concerned consists of a failure to take a decision’.
236 See Chapter 6 section 6.2.1.2 above on omissions as a ground upon which the lawfulness of
administrative action can be challenged.
237 2007 (6) SA 117 (SCA).
238 Trend Finance para 27.
239 2003 (5) SA 51 (C).
240 Ruyobeza at 65B–D.
241 2009 (5) SA 145 (KZP).
242 Sibiya para 24.
243 Sibiya paras 18–19, 29.
244 2002 (1) SA 342 (SE).
245 See also Mbanga v MEC for Welfare, Eastern Cape and Another 2002 (1) SA 359 (SE), where
Leach J made a similar order.
246 A further helpful example is Road Accident Fund v Duma and ree Similar Cases 2013 (6)
SA 9 (SCA) paras 20–23, where the court explained how such an approach could be used in
terms of PAJA when the Road Accident Fund failed to take a decision within a reasonable
time.
247 See Chapter 3 section 3.7.1 on rule-making, that is the creation of subordinate legislation,
as administrative action.
248 1952 (3) SA 809 (A).
249 Chester eld House at 822D–F. See too S v Prefabricated Housing Corporation (Pty) Ltd and
Another 1974 (1) SA 535 (A) at 539C–F.
250 Section 172(1)(a) of the Constitution.
251 2014 (3) SA 251 (SCA) paras 44–49.
252 Baxter (1984) 679.
253 Contempt of court cannot be invoked for non-compliance with court orders directing only
at the payment of monies (orders in pecuniam solvendam) – such orders must be enforced
by way of execution.
254 Fakie NO v CCII Systems (Pty) Ltd 2006 (4) SA 326 (SCA) para 8.
255 See Pheko and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (No 2) 2015 (5) SA 600 (CC)
at para 27, and the cases cited there.
256 Roach, K & Budlender, G (2005) Mandatory Relief and Supervisory Jurisdiction: When is it
Appropriate, Just and Equitable? SALJ 122(2):325.
257 Fakie para 9; Pheko (No 2) para 42.
258 2006 (4) SA 326 (SCA).
259 However, a declaratory order and other appropriate civil remedies remain available to an
applicant if contempt of court is proven only on a balance of probabilities.
260 Pheko and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (No 2) 2015 (5) SA 600 (CC)
paras 25–37.
261 Pheko (No 2) para 47.
262 Setshedi v Minister Ndebele and Another (2014) 35 ILJ 2861 (LC) para 1.
263 Setshedi para 1.
264 Fakie para 7.
265 For a general discussion on the principles of costs awards under the common law, see
Herbstein & Van Winsen, Volume 2, Chapter 36 at 951ff. See too, Affordable Medicines Trust
and Others v Minister of Health and Others 2006 (3) SA 247 (CC) para 138.
266 Whether instituted under PAJA or on the basis of the constitutional principle of legality,
judicial review is directed at protecting and giving effect to the right to just administrative
action under section 33 of the Constitution.
267 Freedom Under Law para 52; Bengwenyama Minerals para 88; Koyabe and Others v
Minister for Home Affairs and Others (Lawyers for Human Rights as Amicus Curiae) 2010 (4)
SA 327 (CC) para 87.
268 2009 (6) SA 232 (CC). See also Affordable Medicines Trust para 138.
269 Biowatch Trust para 56.
270 Biowatch Trust para 23.
271 2010 (2) SA 622 (CC).
272 Bothma v Els and Others paras 91–93.
273 See Hoexter (2012) 574–576.
274 See, for example, Nyathi v MEC for Department of Health, Gauteng and Another 2008 (5) SA
94 (CC) para 91; Njongi v MEC, Department of Welfare, Eastern Cape, 2008 (4) SA 237 (CC)
para 85.
275 See cases discussed below. See also: Moeca v Addisionele Komissaris, Bloemfontein 1981 (2)
SA 357 (O) at 366B–C; Machi v MEC for Province of KwaZulu-Natal Responsible for Social
Welfare and Population Development, unreported case D&CLD 4392/04 of 8 March 2005,
discussed in Hoexter (2012) 575–576.
276 Motsepe v Commissioner for Inland Revenue 1997 (2) SA 898 (CC) para 30. See also
Affordable Medicines Trust para 138.
277 Black Sash Trust v Minister of Social Development and Others (Freedom Under Law NPC
Intervening) 2018 (12) BCLR 1472 (CC) (‘Black Sash II’).
278 Black Sash II para 10.
279 Public Protector v South African Reserve Bank 2019 (6) SA 253 (CC).
280 South African Reserve Bank at paras 152–153.
281 107 of 1998.
282 Trencon paras 89–90.
283 2014 (6) SA 456 (CC) para 113.
Promotion of Administrative
Justice Act 3 of 2000
ACT
PREAMBLE
AND IN ORDER TO –
De nitions
1. In this Act, unless the context indicates otherwise—
Application of Act
2 (1) e Minister may, by notice in the Gazette—
(ii) the nature and purpose of, and the need to take, the
administrative action;
(ii) the nature and purpose of, and the need to take, the
administrative action;
(5) Any rule made under subsection (3) must, before publication in
the Gazette, be approved by Parliament.
Remedies in proceedings for judicial review
8 (1) e court or tribunal, in proceedings for judicial review in terms
of section 6 (1), may grant any order that is just and equitable,
including orders—
(f ) as to costs.
(d) as to costs.
Variation of time
9 (1) e period of—
(2) …
(4) …
(6) …
(7) …
(a) made under subsections (1) (a), (b), (c) and (d) and (2) (c),
(d) and (e) must, before publication in the Gazette, be
submitted to Parliament; and
(b) made under subsection (2) (a) and (b) must, before
publication in the Gazette, be approved by Parliament.
(5) Any regulation made under subsections (1) and (2) or any
provision of the code of good administrative conduct made under
subsection (5A) which may result in nancial expenditure for the
State must be made in consultation with the Minister of Finance.
Liability
10A. No person is criminally or civilly liable for anything done in good
faith in the exercise or performance or purported exercise or
performance of any power or duty in terms of this Act or the rules
made under section 7(3).
Journal articles
Allan, TRS (2006) Human Rights and Judicial Review: A Critique of ‘Due Deference’ Cambridge
Law Journal 65(3):671
Bamford, BR (1967) Race Reclassi cation SALJ 84(1):37
Boonzaier, L (2018) A Decision to Undo SALJ 135(4):642
Brand, D & Murcott, M (2014) Administrative Law Juta’s Quarterly Review of South African Law
1
Budlender, G (1988) Law and Lawlessness in South Africa SAJHR 4(2):139
Butterworth D, De Oliviera, JAA & De Moor, CL (2012) Are South African Administrative Law
Procedures Adequate for the Evaluation of Issues Resting on Scienti c Analysis? SALJ
129(3):461
Campbell, J (2003) Legitimate Expectations: e Potential and Limits of Substantive Protection
in South Africa SALJ 120(2):292
Corder, H (1993) Introduction: Administrative Law Reform Acta Juridica 1
Corder, H (2004) Without Deference, With Respect: A Response to Justice O’Regan SALJ
121(2):438
Creyke, R (2006) Administrative Justice: Beyond the Courtroom Door Acta Juridica 257
Currie, I (2006) What Difference Does the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Make to
Administrative Law Acta Juridica 325
Davis, DM (2006) To Defer and en When? Administrative Law and Constitutional Democracy
Acta Juridica 23
Davis, DM (2006) Adjudicating the Socio-Economic Rights in the South African Constitution:
Towards ‘Deference Lite’? SAJHR 22(2):301
De Beer, MN (2018) A New Role for the Principle of Legality in Administrative Law: State
Information Technology Agency Soc Ltd v Gijima Holdings (Pty) Ltd SALJ 135(4):613–630
Du Plessis, M & Scott, S (2013) e Variable Standard of Rationality Review: Suggestions for
Improved Legality Jurisprudence SALJ 130(3):597
Hoexter, C (2000) e Future of Judicial Review in South African Administrative Law SALJ
117(3):484
Hoexter, C (2006) ‘Administrative Action’ in the Courts Acta Juricia 303
Kohn, L (2013) e Burgeoning Constitutional Requirement of Rationality and the Separation of
Powers: Has Rationality Review Gone too Far? SALJ 130(4):810
Maree, PJH & Quinot, G (2016) A Decade and a Half of Deference (Part I) (2016) Journal of South
African Law 268–280
Maree, PJH & Quinot, G (2016) A Decade and a Half of Deference (Part II) (2016) Journal of
South African Law 447–466
Murcott, M (2013) Procedural Fairness as a Component of Legality: Is a Reconciliation between
Albutt and Masetlha Possible? SALJ 130(2):260
Murcott, M (2015) A Future for the Doctrine of Substantive Legitimate Expectation? e
Implications of Kwazulu-Natal Joint Liaison Committee v MEC for Education, Kwazulu-
Natal PER (18)1:3133
Mureinik, E (1994) A Bridge to Where? Introducing the Interim Bill of Rights SAJHR 10(1):31
Mureinik, E (1993) Reconsidering Review: Participation and Accountability Acta Juridica 35
O’Regan, K (2004) Breaking Ground: Some oughts on the Seismic Shift in our Administrative
Law SALJ 121(2):424
Plasket, C (2002) e Exhaustion of Internal Remedies and Section 7(2) of the Promotion of
Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 SALJ 119(1):50
Plasket, C (2016) e Fundamental Principles of Justice and Legal Vacuums: e Regulatory
Powers of National Sporting Bodies SALJ 133(3):569
Plasket, C (2018) Judicial Review, Administrative Power and Deference: A View from the Bench
SALJ 135(3):502
Plasket, C (2019) Disproportionality — e Hidden Ground of Review: Medirite (Pty) Ltd v South
African Pharmacy Council & Another SALJ 136(1):15
Pretorius, DM (2005) e Origins of the Functus Officio Doctrine, With Speci c Reference to its
Application in Administrative Law SALJ 122(4):832
Pretorius, DM (2000) Ten Years After Traub: e Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation in South
African Administrative Law SALJ 117(3):520
Quinot, G (2004) e Developing Doctrine of Substantive Protection of Legitimate Expectations
in South African Administrative Law SA Public Law 19:543
Quinot, G (2010) Administrative Law Annual Survey of South African Law 41
Quinot, G (2010) New Procedures for the Judicial Review of Administrative Action SA Public
Law 25(2):646
Quinot, G (2010) Substantive Reasoning in Administrative Law Adjudication Constitutional
Court Review 3:111
Quinot, G (2011) Administrative Law Annual Survey of South African Law 49
Quinot, G & Van der Sijde, E (2019) Opening at the Close: Clarity from the Constitutional Court
on the Legal Cause of Action and Regulatory Framework for an Organ of State Seeking to
Review Its Own Decisions? TSAR 2:324
Taylor, H (2019) Forcing the Court’s Remedial Hand: Non-Compliance as a Catalyst for
Remedial Innovation Constitutional Court Review IX:247
eophilopoulos, C & De Matos Ala, C (2019) An Analysis of the Public Protector’s Investigatory
and Decision-Making Procedural Powers PER / PELJ 22
Tomkins, A (2002) In Defence of the Political Constitution Oxford Journal of Legal Studies
22(1):157
Tsele, M (2019) Rationalising Judicial Review: Towards Re ning the “Rational Basis” Review
Test(s) SALJ 136(2):328 at 359–360
Udeh, KT (2016) Viability of bidder remedies under section 62 of the South African Municipal
Systems Act African Public Procurement Law Journal 3(2):72
Van Wyk, J (2014) Fracking in the Karoo: Approvals Required Stellenbosch Law Review 25(1):34
Venter, R (2017) e Executive, the Public Protector and the Legislature: e Lion, the Witch and
the Wardrobe TSAR 176–189
Wallis, M (2018) Do We Need Deference? SAJEI 1(1):97
Reports and policy papers
Auditor-General of South Africa (2014) Consolidated General Report on National and Provincial
Audit Outcomes PFMA (2013–2014) Available at:
https://www.agsa.co.za/Documents/Auditreports/MFMAgeneralreportsnational.aspx
Department of Water Affairs and Forestry Water Supply and Sanitation Policy White Paper:
Water – An Indivisible National Asset November 1994
Public Protector Secure in Comfort: Report on an Investigation into Allegations of Impropriety
and Unethical Conduct Relating to the Installation and Implementation of Security Measures
by the Department of Public Works at and in Respect of the Private Residence of President
Jacob Zuma at Nkandla in the KwaZulu-Natal Province Report No. 25 of 2013/2014 Available
at:
http://www.gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/ les/Public%20Protector’s%20Report%20on%20Nkan
dla_a.pdf
South African Law Commission Report (August 1998) e Recognition of Class Actions and
Public Interest Actions in South African Law (Project 88) Pretoria: South African Law
Commission Available at:
http://www.justice.gov.za/salrc/reports/r_prj88_classact_1998aug.pdf
e International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) e Rule of Law in a Free Society: A Report on the
International Congress of Jurists, New Delhi India, 1959. Available at:
http://www.icj.org/rule-of-law-in-a-free-society-
a-report-on-the-international-congress-of-jurists-new-delhi-india-january-5-10-1959/
e International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) e Dynamic Aspects of the Rule of Law: A Report
on the International Congress of Jurists, Bangkok ailand, 1965
White Paper on Transforming Public Service Delivery (Batho Pele- “People First” White Paper
on Transforming Public Service Delivery) Dept. of Public Service and Administration 18
Sept 1997, Notice 1459 of 1997 in GG 18340 of 1 October 1997 Available at:
http://www.dpsa.gov.za/dpsa2g/documents/acts®ulations/frameworks/white-
papers/transform.pdf
Dictionaries
Concise Oxford Dictionary (1982) 7th ed Oxford: Oxford University Press
Oxford English Dictionary OED (Online) (2015) Oxford University Press Available at:
http://www.oed.com/
Additional reading
Bednar-Giyose, J (2018) Legislative Drafting and the Appropriate Delineation of Administrative
Power PhD dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand
Craig, PP ‘What is Public Power?’ in Corder, H & Maluwa, T (Eds) (1997) Administrative Justice
in Southern Africa: Proceedings of the Workshop on Controlling Public Power in Southern
Africa Held in Cape Town, South Africa, 8-11 March 1996 Cape Town: Dept of Public Law,
UCT
Corder, H (1993) Introduction: Administrative Law Reform Acta Juridica 1
Forsyth, C (2006) e eory of the Second Actor Revisited Acta Juridica 209
Forsyth, C & Dring, E ‘e Final Frontier: e Emergence of Material Error of Fact as a Ground
for Judicial Review’ in Forsyth, C et al (Eds) (2010) Effective Judicial Review: A Cornerstone of
Good Governance Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press
Govender, K ‘Administrative Appeals Tribunals’ in Bennett, TW & Corder, H (Eds) (1993)
Administrative Law Reform Cape Town: Juta
Hoexter, C (1994) Administrative Justice and Dishonesty SALJ 111(4):700
Hoexter, C ‘From Chirwa to Gcaba: An Administrative Lawyer’s View’ in Kidd, M & Hoctor, S
(Eds) (2010) Stella Iuris: Celebrating 100 Years of Teaching Law in Pietermaritzburg Cape
Town: Juta
Mandlana, W (2008) Effective Remedies and Obedience to Court Orders Central to the Rule of
Law: An Examination of the Judicial Approach Speculum Juris 22(1):14
Maree, PJH (2013) Investigating an Alternative Administrative-Law System in South Africa
Unpublished doctoral dissertation (US) Chapter 2 Available at:
http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/85591
Mureinik, E (1993) Reconsidering Review: Participation and Accountability Acta Juridica 35
Pfaff, R & Schneider, H (2001) e Promotion of Administrative Justice Act from a German
Perspective SAJHR 17(1):59
Plasket, C (2000) Protecting the Public Purse: Appropriate Relief and Cost Orders Against Public
Officials SALJ 117(1):151
Pretorius, DM (2005) e Origins of the Functus Officio Doctrine, With Speci c Reference to its
Application in Administrative Law SALJ 122(4):832
Price, A (2010) e Content and Justi cation of Rationality Review SA Public Law 25:346
Quinot, G (2008) Worse an Losing a Government Tender: Winning It Stellenbosch Law Review
19(1):101
Quinot, G (2011) e Right to Reasons for Administrative Action as a Key Ingredient of a Culture
of Justi cation Speculum Juris 25(1):32
Roach, K & Budlender, G (2005) Mandatory Relief and Supervisory Jurisdiction: When is it
Appropriate, Just and Equitable? SALJ 122(2):325
Saunders, C ‘Appeal or Review: e Experience of Administrative Appeals in Australia’ in
Bennett, TW & Corder, H (Eds) (1993) Administrative Law Reform Cape Town: Juta
ornton, L (1999) e Constitutional Right to Just Administrative Action – Are Political Parties
Bound? SAJHR 15(3):351
Van Loggerenberg, DE; Bishop, M & Brickhill, J (2014) Erasmus: Superior Courts Practice
(Revision Service 45) Appendix E8: Interdicts at 1–15 Cape Town: Juta
Williams, RC (2011) e Concept of a ‘Decision’ as the reshold Requirement for Judicial
Review in Terms of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act PER 14:230
Internet sources
Department of National Treasury RSA (2015) ‘Practice Notes’ Available at:
http://www.treasury.gov.za/legislation/pfma/practice%20notes/default.aspx
Department of National Treasury RSA (2015) Information about the Ministry Available at:
http://www.treasury.gov.za/ministry/info.aspx
Department of Public Service and Administration RSA (2013) Public Service Integrity
Management Framework Available at:
http://www.dpsa.gov.za/dpsa2g/documents/misc/Public%20Service%20Integrity%20Mana
gement%20Framework.pdf
Department of Water Affairs and Sanitation Available at: http://www.dwaf.gov.za/about.aspx
Eskom: Powering Your World (2015) Available at:
http://www.eskom.co.za/OurCompany/CompanyInformation/Pages/Legislation.aspx
Maree, PJH (2013) Investigating an Alternative Administrative-Law System in South Africa
Unpublished doctoral dissertation (US) Chapter 2 Available at:
http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/85591
University of the Free State ‘UFS Research Sheds Light on Service Delivery Protests in South
Africa’ 03/02/2015 Mail and Guardian Available at:
http://pressoffice.mg.co.za/universityofthefreestate/PressRelease.php?StoryID=255849
A
AAA Investments (Pty) Ltd v Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another 2007 (1) SA 343 (CC) 12, 77,
78, 79, 87, 161
Abbott v Overstrand Municipality [2016] ZASCA 68, 20 May 2016 180
Absa Bank Limited and Others v Public Protector 2018 JDR 0190 (GP) 116
Absa Bank Ltd v Ukwanda Leisure Holdings (Pty) Ltd 2014 (1) SA 550 (GSJ) 90
Administrator, Transvaal and Others v Traub and Others 1989 (4) SA 731 (A) 178
Affordable Medicines Trust and Others v Minister of Health and Others 2006 (3) SA 247 (CC) 258, 348, 349,
350
Affordable Medicines Trust and Others v Minister of Health of RSA and Another 2005 (6) BCLR 529 (CC) 219
African Christian Democratic Party v Electoral Commission and Others 2006 (3) SA 305 (CC) 164
Afriforum v University of the Free State 2018 (2) SA 185 (CC) 84, 282
Airports Company South Africa Ltd and Another v ISO Leisure OR Tambo (Pty) Ltd 2011 (4) SA 642 (GSJ) 91,
124, 125
Albutt v Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation and Others 2010 (3) SA 293 (CC) 25, 172, 194,
195, 196, 210, 254
Allpay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Chief Executive Officer, South African Social
Security Agency and Others 2013 (4) SA 557 (SCA) 26
Allpay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Chief Executive Officer, South African Social
Security Agency and Others 2014 (1) SA 604 (CC) – which is referred to in abbreviated form as Allpay
(merits) 26, 94, 164, 190, 219, 220, 221, 256, 263, 296, 310, 316
Allpay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Chief Executive Officer, South African Social
Security Agency and Others 2014 (4) SA 179 (CC) which is referred to in its abbreviated form as Allpay
(remedy) 295, 296, 302, 303, 308, 310, 311, 315, 317, 322, 332, 334, 335, 336
Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) (Pty) Ltd and Another v Wraith and Others (1983) 48 ALR 500 241,
242
Associated Institutions Pension Fund and Others v Van Zyl and Others 2005 (2) SA 302 (SCA) 283
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 204
Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union v Chamber of Mines of South Africa 2017 (3) SA 242 (CC)
89, 90, 138
B
B v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] UKHRR 498 (CA) 213
Bam-Mugwanya v Minister of Finance and Provincial Expenditure, Eastern Cape and Others 2001 (4) SA 120
(C) 194
Bangtoo Bros and Others v National Transport Commission and Others 1973 (4) SA 667 (N) 218
Barnard v Jockey Club of South Africa 1984 (2) SA 35 (W) 172
Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Others 2004 (4) SA 490 (CC) 22, 132,
133, 134, 135, 140, 141, 202, 204, 205, 212, 214, 215, 217, 222, 223, 224, 297, 316
Bel Porto School Governing Body and Others v Premier, Western Cape and Another2002 (3) SA 265 (CC)
130, 213
Benedetti v Sawiris & Ors [2013] UKSC 50 331
Bengwenyama Minerals (Pty) Ltd and Others v Genorah Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others 2011 (4) SA 113 (CC)
182, 189, 296, 348
Bertie van Zyl (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister for Safety and Security and Others 2010 (2) SA 181 (CC) 219
Biowatch Trust v Registrar, Genetic Resources and Others 2009 (6) SA 232 (CC) 348, 349, 350
Black Eagle Project Roodekrans v MEC: Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment, Gauteng
Provincial Department [2019] 2 All SA 322 (GJ) 239
Black Sash Trust v Minister of Social Development 2017 (3) SA 335 (CC) (‘Black Sash I’) 336
Black Sash Trust v Minister of Social Development and Others (Freedom Under Law NPC Intervening) 2018
(12) BCLR 1472 (CC) (‘Black Sash II’) 350
Bothma v Els and Others 2010 (2) SA 622 (CC) 349
Britannia Beach Estate (Pty) Ltd and Others v Saldanha Bay Municipality 2013 (11) BCLR 1217 (CC) 36
Bruce v Fleecytex Johannesburg CC 1998 (2) SA 1143 (CC) 286
BTR Industries South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others v Metal and Allied Workers’ Union and Another 1992 (3) SA
673 (A) 191, 194
Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality v Asla Construction (Pty) Limited 2019 (4) SA 331 (CC) 132, 134,
137, 283, 284, 285, 312, 313, 314, 315
BW Bright Water Way Props (Pty) Ltd v Eastern Cape Development Corporation 2019 (6) SA 443 (ECG) 132
C
Calibre Clinical Consultants (Pty) Ltd and Another v National Bargaining Council for the Road Freight Industry
and Another 2010 (5) SA 457 (SCA) 79, 91
Camps Bay Ratepayers’ and Residents’ Association v Harrison [2010] 2 All SA 519 (SCA) 283, 284
Cape Gate (Pty) Ltd and Others v Eskom Holdings (Soc) Ltd and Others 2019 (4) SA 14 (GJ) 207
Cape Metropolitan Council v Metro Inspection Services (Western Cape) CC and Others 2001 (3) SA 1013
(SCA) 25, 90
Cape Town City and Another v Da Cruz and Another 2018 (3) SA 462 (WCC) 221
Cape Town City v South African National Roads Agency Ltd 2015 (6) SA 535 (WCC) 162
Carephone (Pty) Ltd v Marcus NO and Others 1999 (3) SA 304 (LAC) 128, 129, 205, 224
Carlson Investments Share Block (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner, SARS 2001 (3) SA 210 (W) 154
Cash Paymaster Services (Pty) Ltd v Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social Security Agency and
Others [2019] 4 All SA 327 (SCA) 303
Chairman, Board on Tariffs and Trade and Others v Teltron (Pty) Ltd 1997 (2) SA 25 (A) 160
Chairman, State Tender Board v Digital Voice Processing (Pty) Ltd; Chairman, State Tender Board v Sneller
Digital (Pty) Ltd and Others 2012 (2) SA 16 (SCA) 169
Chairperson, Standing Tender Committee and Others v JFE Sapela Electronics (Pty) Ltd and Others 2008 (2)
SA 638 (SCA) 283, 308, 309
Chirwa v Transnet Ltd and Others (Case No 03/01052, WLD) 90
Chirwa v Transnet Ltd and Others 2008 (4) SA 367 (CC) 25, 35, 89, 99
City of Cape Town v Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Ltd 2017 (4) SA 223 (CC) 284, 312
City of Cape Town v Reader and Others 2009 (1) SA 555 (SCA) 271
City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Cable City (Pty) Ltd 2010 (3) SA 589 (SCA) 86
City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v RPM Bricks Proprietary Ltd 2008 (3) SA 1 (SCA) 330
Commissioner, Competition Commission v General Council of the Bar of South Africa and Others 2002 (6) SA
606 (SCA) 319
Commissioner, South African Police Service and Others v Maimela and Another 2003 (5) SA 480 (T) 241,
244, 245, 246, 248, 251, 252
Commissioner, South African Revenue Service v Sprigg Investment 117 CC t/a Global Investment 2011 (4) SA
551 (SCA) 251
Commissioner, South African Revenue Service v Trend Finance (Pty) Limited and Another 2007 (6) SA 117
(SCA) 343
Corruption Watch (NPC) (RF) v Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social Services and Others [2018]
ZAGPPHC 7 303
Corruption Watch and Another v Arms Procurement Commission and Others [2019] 4 All SA 53 (GP) 59, 195
Corruption Watch NPC and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others; Nxasana v Corruption
Watch NPC and Others 2018 (10) BCLR 1179 (CC) 298
Council of Review, South African Defence Force v H J Mönnig and Others 1992 (3) SA 482 (A) 191
Country Cloud Trading CC v MEC, Department of Infrastructure Development, Gauteng 2015 (1) SA 1 (CC)
326
Cronje v United Cricket Board of SA 2001 (4) SA 1361 (T) 91
D
Dalrumple and Others v Colonial Treasurer 1910 TS 372 276
Darson Construction (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town and Another 2007 (4) SA 488 (C) 323, 328, 329, 330
Dawnlaan Beleggings (Edms) Bpk v Johannesburg Stock Exchange and Others 1983 (3) SA 344 (W) 78, 90
Dawood and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others; Shalabi and Another v Minister of Home Affairs
and Others; Thomas and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others 2000 (3) SA 936 (CC) 107, 108,
219, 257, 258, 260
De Jong and Others v The Trustees of the Simcha Trust and Another 2014 (4) SA 73 (WCC) 323, 327, 328,
329, 330, 334
De Lange v Smuts NO and Others 1998 (3) SA 785 (CC) 42
Democratic Alliance and Others v Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others 2012 (3) SA 486
(SCA) 98, 211, 212, 278
Democratic Alliance v President of the Republic of South Africa 2017 (4) SA 253 (GP) 211, 291
Democratic Alliance v The President of the Republic of South Africa and Others 2013 (1) SA 248 (CC) 210
Dengetenge Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Southern Sphere Mining & Development Co Ltd and Others 2014 (5) SA 138
(CC) 138
Department of Transport v Tasima (Pty) Limited 2017 (2) SA 622 (CC) 284, 305, 307, 312
Dr. Nyoka v Cricket South Africa 2011 JDR 0460 (GSJ) 91
Dube v Zikalala [2017] 4 All SA 365 (KZP) 90
Dumani v Nair and Another 2013 (2) SA 274 (SCA) 169
Duncan v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Another 2010 (6) SA 374 (SCA) 180
Dunn v Minister of Defence and Others 2006 (2) SA 107 (T) 329
E
Earthlife Africa (Cape Town) v Director-General: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Another
2005 (3) SA 156 (C) 72, 139, 190, 266
Earthlife Africa Johannesburg v Minister of Energy 2017 (5) SA 227 (WCC) 190
Economic Freedom Fighters v Gordhan and Others; Public Protector and Another v Gordhan and Others [2020]
ZACC 10 339
Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others; Democratic Alliance v Speaker of
the National Assembly and Others 2016 (3) SA 580 (CC) 113, 114, 115
Ehrlich v Minister of Correctional Services and Another 2009 (2) SA 373 (E) 201, 214, 216, 221
Electronic Media Network Limited and Others v e.tv (Pty) Limited and Others 2017 (9) BCLR 1108 (CC) 136
ESDA Properties (Pty) Ltd v Amathole District Municipality [2014] ZAECGHC 76 272
Eskom Holdings Ltd and Another v New Reclamation Group (Pty) Ltd 2009 (4) SA 628 (SCA) 308
Essack v Durban City Council 1953 (4) SA 17 (N) 319
Evaluations Enhanced Property Appraisals (Pty) Ltd v Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality [2014] 3 All SA
560 (ECG) 271
Ex Parte Chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly: In Re Certification of the Constitution of the Republic of
South Africa, 1996 1996 (4) SA 744 (CC) 37, 38, 41
Ex Parte Women’s Legal Centre, In Re Moise v Greater Germiston Transitional Local Council 2001 (4) SA 1288
(CC) 298
F
Fakie NO v CCII Systems (Pty) Ltd 2006 (4) SA 326 (SCA) 346, 347, 348
Fedsure Life Assurance Ltd and Others v Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan Council and Others
1999 (1) SA 374 (CC) 36, 72, 74, 132, 145, 147, 148, 168, 194, 195, 258
Ferreira v Levin NO and Others; Vryenhoek and Others v Powell NO & Others 1996 (1) SA 984 (CC) 275,
276, 277, 279, 281, 298, 300, 301
Ferucci and Others v Commissioner, South African Revenue Service and Another 2002 (6) SA 219 (C) 214,
215, 216
Finishing Touch 163 (Pty) Ltd v BHP Billiton Energy Coal SA Ltd 2013 (2) SA 204 (SCA) 287
Florence v Government of the Republic of South Africa 2014 (6) SA 456 (CC) 351
FNM v Refugee Appeal Board and Others 2019 (1) SA 468 (GP) 207
Foodcorp (Pty) Ltd v Deputy Director-General, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism: Branch Marine
and Coastal Management and Others 2006 (2) SA 199 (C) 208, 209
Fortuin v Church of Christ Mission of the Republic of South Africa [2016] ZAECPEHC 18 196
Fose v Minister of Safety and Security 1997 (3) SA 786 (CC) 295, 324, 333, 334
Fredericks v MEC for Education and Training, Eastern Cape 2002 (2) SA 693 (CC) 25
Freedom Under Law v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others 2014 (1) SA 254 (GNP) 196
Funani v MEC: Department of Education Eastern Cape Province [2017] ZAECBHC 9 99
G
Gauteng Gambling Board and Another v MEC for Economic Development, Gauteng 2013 (5) SA 24 (SCA)
150
Gauteng Gambling Board v Silverstar Development Ltd and Others 2005 (4) SA 67 (SCA) 316, 318, 320,
322
Gavri v Refugee Status Determination Officer Cape Town and Others 2019 (1) SA 21 (CC) 243, 322
Gcaba v Minister for Safety and Security and Others 2010 (1) SA 238 (CC) 24, 25, 99
Genesis Medical Scheme v Registrar of Medical Schemes 2017 (6) SA 1 (CC) 167
Giant Concerts CC v Rinaldo Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others 2013 (3) BCLR 251 (CC) 278, 279
Gool v Minister of Justice and Another 1955 (2) SA 682 (C) 340, 341
Government of the Republic of South Africa v Thabiso Chemicals (Pty) Ltd 2009 (1) SA 163 (SCA) 72
Gqwetha v Transkei Development Corporation Ltd and Others 2006 (2) SA 603 (SCA) 284
Grey’s Marine Hout Bay (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Public Works and Others 2005 (6) SA 313 (SCA)
79, 84, 94, 95, 96, 177
Grinaker LTA Ltd and Another v Tender Board (Mpumalanga) and Others [2002] 3 All SA 336 (T) 253
Groenewald NO v M5 Developments (Cape) (Pty) Ltd 2010 (5) SA 82 (SCA) 271
Gumede and Others v Minister of Law and Order and Another 1984 (4) SA 915 (N) 245
H
Hamata and Another v Chairperson, Peninsula Technikon Internal Disciplinary Committee and Others 2000 (4)
SA 621 (C) 194
Hangklip Environmental Action Group v MEC for Agriculture, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning,
Western Cape and Others 2007 (6) SA 65 (C) 318
Harmony Gold Mining Company Ltd v Regional Director: Free State Department of Water Affairs and Others
2014 (3) SA 149 (SCA) 219
Harvey v Umhlatuze Municipality and Others 2011 (1) SA 601 (KZP) 151
Head, Western Cape Education Department and Others v Governing Body, Point High School and Others 2008
(5) SA 18 (SCA) 319
Heatherdale Farms (Pty) Ltd and Others v Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Another 1980 (3) SA 476 (T)
172
Helen Suzman Foundation v JSC 2018 (4) SA 1 (CC) 287, 290
Hira and Another v Booysen and Another 1992 (4) SA 69 (A) 168
Home Talk Developments (Pty) Ltd v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality 2018 (1) SA 391 (SCA) 323
I
ICS Pension Fund v Sithole and Others NNO 2010 (3) SA 419 (T) 319
Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Limited v Trencon Construction (Pty) Ltd [2014] 4 All SA
561 (SCA) 321
International Trade Administration Commission v SCAW South Africa (Pty) Limited 2012 (4) SA 618 (CC) 341
Intertrade Two (Pty) Ltd v MEC for Roads and Public Works, Eastern Cape and Another 2007 (6) SA 442 (Ck)
316, 319
Investigating Directorate: Serious Economic Offences and Others v Hyundai Motor Distributors (Pty) Ltd and
Others: In Re Hyundai Motor Distributors (Pty) Ltd and Others v Smit NO and Others 2001 (1) SA 545 (CC)
219, 258
Islamic Unity Convention v Independent Broadcasting Authority and Others 2002 (4) SA 294 (CC) 335
J
Janse van Rensburg and Another v Minister of Trade and Industry and Another 2001 (1) SA 29 (CC) 260
Jayiya v MEC for Welfare, Eastern Cape and Another 2004 (2) SA 611 (SCA) 333
Jeffery v President, South African Medical and Dental Council 1987 (1) SA 387 (C) 238
JH v Health Professions Council of South Africa 2016 (2) SA 93 (WCC) 238
Jikeka v South African Social Security Agency 2011 (6) SA 628 (ECM) 236
Jockey Club of SA v Forbes 1993 (1) SA 649 (A) 288
Johannesburg City Council v Administrator, Transvaal and Another 1969 (2) SA 72 (T) 276
Johannesburg City Council v Chesterfield House (Pty) Ltd 1952 (3) SA 809 (A) 345
Johannesburg City Council v The Administrator, Transvaal and Another 1970 (2) SA 89 (T) 290
Johannesburg Consolidated Investment Co v Johannesburg Town Council 1903 TS 111 130, 302
Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Gauteng Development Tribunal and Others 2010 (6) SA 182 (CC)
168, 259
Johannesburg Stock Exchange and Another v Witwatersrand Nigel Ltd and Another 1988 (3) SA 132 (A) 90
Jose and Another v The Minister of Home Affairs and Others 2019 (4) SA 597 (GP) 322
Joseph and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others 2010 (4) SA 55 (CC) 25, 94, 95, 173, 176, 177,
181, 191, 234, 267, 269
JSE and Another v Witwatersrand Nigel 1988 (3) SA 132 (A) 16
Judicial Service Commission and Another v Cape Bar Council and Another 2013 (1) SA 170 (SCA) 23, 158,
159, 210, 253, 254
Justice Alliance of South Africa v President of Republic of South Africa and Others, Freedom Under Law v
President of Republic of South Africa and Others, Centre for Applied Legal Studies and Another v President
of Republic of South Africa and Others 2011 (5) SA 388 (CC) 260
K
Kaunda and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others 2005 (4) SA 235 (CC) 97
Kemp NO v Van Wyk 2005 (6) SA 519 (SCA) 162
Khan v Ansur NO and Others 2009 (3) SA 258 (D) 91
Khumalo and Another v Member of the Executive Council for Education: KwaZulu Natal 2014 (5) SA 579 (CC)
284, 307, 312
Kimberley Junior School and Another v Head, Northern Cape Education Department and Others 2010 (1) SA
217 (SCA) 166
Kiva v Minister of Correctional Services and Another (2007) 28 ILJ 597 (E) 94, 228, 233, 234, 243
Klein v Dainfern College and Another 2006 (3) SA 73 (T) 137
Komape v Minister of Basic Education [2019] ZASCA 192 334
Koyabe and Others v Minister for Home Affairs and Others (Lawyers for Human Rights as Amicus Curiae) 2010
(4) SA 327 (CC) 111, 138, 139, 227, 242, 245, 246, 270, 348
Kruger v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others 2009 (1) SA 417 (CC) 220, 277, 301
Kruse v Johnson [1898] 2 QB 91 203, 219
KwaZulu-Natal Joint Liaison Committee v MEC for Education, Kwazulu-Natal and Others 2013 (4) SA 262 (CC)
180
Kwemaya v National Commissioner, Correctional Services [2017] ZAKZDHC 33 99
L
Law Society of South Africa and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others 2019 (3) BCLR
329 (CC) 172, 194, 195
Lawyers for Human Rights and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Another 2004 (4) SA 125 (CC) 281
Lawyers for Human Rights v Minister of Home Affairs and Others 2017 (5) SA 480 (CC) 260
Lawyers for Human Rights v Rules Board for Courts of Law and Another [2012] 3 All SA 153 (GNP) 287
Le Roux and Others v Honourable Magistrate and Others [2006] ZAGPHC 63 73
Liebenberg v Brakpan Liquor Licensing Board 1944 WLD 52 194
Linkside and Others v Minister of Basic Education and Others [2014] ZAECGHC 111 337
Liquor Web (Edms) Bpk v Voorsitter, Drankraad en ’n Ander 2001 (1) SA 1069 (T) 253
Logbro Properties CC v Bedderson NO and Others 2003 (2) SA 460 (SCA) 25, 65, 140, 141, 222, 316,
317, 318
Loghdey v Advanced Parking Solutions CC 2009 JDR 0157 (C) 272
Loza v Police Station Commander, Durbanville 1964 (2) SA 545 (A) 16
M
M v Minister of Home Affairs and Others [2014] ZAGPPHC 649 318, 319, 321, 322
Machi v MEC for Province of KwaZulu-Natal Responsible for Social Welfare and Population Development,
unreported case D&CLD 4392/04 of 8 March 2005 350
Magnificent Mile Trading 30 (Pty) Limited v Charmaine Celliers NO and Others 2020 (1) BCLR 41 (CC) 300,
303, 305
Mahambehlala v MEC for Welfare, Eastern Cape and Another 2002 (1) SA 342 (SE) 345
Mahlaela v De Beer NO 1986 (4) SA 782 (T) 319
Majake v Commission for Gender Equality and Others 2010 (1) SA 87 (GSJ) 80
Malema and Another v Chairman of the National Council of Provinces and Another 2015 (4) SA 145 (WCC)
136
Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality v Maluti Plant Hire 2017 JDR 0401 (FB) 331
Masamba v Chairperson, Western Cape Regional Committee, Immigrants Selection Board 2001 (12) BCLR
1239 (C) 319
Masetlha v President of the Republic of South Africa and Another 2008 (1) SA 566 (CC) 194, 195
Matatiele Municipality and Others v President of the RSA and Others (No 2) 2007 (6) SA 477 (CC) 34
Mazibuko and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others 2010 (4) SA 1 (CC) 25, 32, 50, 51
Mbanga v MEC for Welfare, Eastern Cape and Another 2002 (1) SA 359 (SE) 345
McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC 2001 (3) SA 482 (SCA) 331
Meadow Glen Home Owners Association and Others v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Another
2015 (2) SA 413 (SCA) 337
MEC for Environmental Affairs and Development Planning v Clairison’s CC 2013 (6) SA 235 (SCA) 217, 218,
316, 317
MEC for Health, Eastern Cape and Another v Kirland Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Eye and Lazer Institute 2014 (3)
SA 481 (CC) 155, 163, 298, 303, 304, 305, 312, 315
MEC, Department of Welfare, Eastern Cape v Kate 2006 (4) SA 478 (SCA) 332, 333, 334
Medirite v South African Pharmacy Council [2015] ZASCA 27 214
Member of the Executive Council for Economic Opportunities, Western Cape v Auditor General of South Africa
and Another [2020] ZAWCHC 50 122
Merafong City Local Municipality v AngloGold Ashanti Limited 2017 (2) SA 211 (CC) 305, 306, 307
Merafong Demarcation Forum and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others 2008 (5) SA
171 (CC) 210
Meyer v Iscor Pension Fund 2003 (2) SA 715 (SCA) 180
Millennium Waste Management (Pty) Ltd v Chairperson, Tender Board: Limpopo Province and Others 2008 (2)
SA 481 (SCA) 26, 221, 250, 298, 309, 311, 317
Minister of Defence and Another v Xulu 2018 (6) SA 460 (SCA) 210, 221
Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Another v Mamasedi 2018 (2) SA 305 (SCA) 268
Minister of Defence and Military Veterans v Motau and Others 2014 (5) SA 69 (CC) 79, 80, 81, 84, 136,
194
Minister of Defence and Others v Dunn 2007 (6) SA 52 (SCA) 94, 329, 330, 334
Minister of Education v Harris 2001 (4) SA 1297 (CC) 148, 149
Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Another v Scenematic Fourteen (Pty) Ltd 2005 (6) SA 182
(SCA) 162
Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Others v Phambili Fisheries (Pty) Ltd; Minister of
Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Others v Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd 2003 (6) SA 407 (SCA) 222,
241, 242, 248
Minister of Finance and Others v Gore NO 2007 (1) SA 111 (SCA) 324, 326, 327
Minister of Health and Another NO v New Clicks (Pty) Ltd and Others (Treatment Action Campaign and Another
as Amici Curiae) 2006 (2) SA 311 (CC) 80, 81, 85, 86, 135, 136, 159, 173, 212,
219, 220
Minister of Home Affairs and Another v Public Protector of the Republic of South Africa 2017 (2) SA 597 (GP)
116
Minister of Home Affairs and Others v Scalabrini Centre and Others 2013 (6) SA 421 (SCA) 83, 84, 94, 172,
194
Minister of Local Government and Land Tenure v Inkosinathi Property Developers (Pty) Ltd and Another 1992
(2) SA 234 (TkA) 319
Minister of Mineral Resources and Others v Sishen Iron Ore Co (Pty) Ltd and Another 2014 (2) SA 603 (CC)
80
Minister of Public Works and Others v Kyalami Ridge Environmental Association and Another (Mukhwevho
Intervening) 2001 (3) SA 1151 (CC) 212
Minister of Safety and Security v Moodley [2011] 4 All SA 47 (SCA) 208
Minister of Safety and Security v Van Duivenboden 2002 (6) SA 431 (SCA) 334
Minister of Social Development v Phoenix Cash & Carry–Pmb CC [2007] 3 All SA 115 (SCA) 250
Minister of Trade and Industry and Others v Nieuwoudt and Another 1985 (2) SA 1 (C) 161
Minister of Trade and Industry v Sundays River Citrus Company (Pty) Ltd [2020] 1 All SA 635 (SCA) 319
Mlokoti v Amathole District Municipality and Another 2009 (6) SA 354 (E) 319
Mlokothi v Trollip [2017] ZAECPEHC 99
Mobile Telephone Networks (Pty) Ltd v Chairperson of the Independent Communications Authority of South
Africa and Others, In Re: Vodacom (Pty) Ltd v Chairperson of the Independent Communications Authority of
South Africa and Others, In Re: Vodacom (Pty) Ltd v Chairperson of the Independent Communications
Authority of South Africa and Others [2014] 3 All SA 171 (GJ) 86
Moeca v Addisionele Komissaris, Bloemfontein 1981 (2) SA 357 (O) 350
Moletsane v Premier of the Free State and Another (1996) 17 ILJ 251 (O) 244
Molteno Brothers and Others Appellants v South African Railways and Others Respondents 1936 AD 321
340, 341
Moseme Road Construction CC and Others v King Civil Engineering Contractors (Pty) Ltd and Another 2010 (4)
SA 359 (SCA) 308, 309
Mostert NO v Registrar of Pension Funds and Others 2018 (2) SA 53 (SCA) 86, 230
Mostert v Nash 2018 (5) SA 409 (SCA) 93
Motsepe v Commissioner for Inland Revenue 1997 (2) SA 898 (CC) 350
Motswana v African National Congress [2019] ZAGPJHC 4 196, 197
Mount Sinai Hospital Centre v Quebec (Minister of Health and Social Services) [2001] 2 SCR 281 179
Mukaddam v Pioneer Foods (Pty) Ltd and Others 2013 (5) SA 89 (CC) 281
Mvumvu and Others v Minister for Transport and Another 2011 (2) SA 473 (CC) 301
Mwelase and Others v Director-General for the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform and
Another 2019 (6) SA 597 (CC) 337
N
National and Overseas Modular Construction (Pty) Ltd v Tender Board, Free State Provincial Government and
Another 1999 (1) SA 701 (O) 253
National Council of Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Openshaw 2008 (5) SA 339 (SCA)
339, 340
National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another v Mohamed NO and Others 2003 (4) SA 1 (CC) 335
National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others v Freedom Under Law 2014 (4) SA 298 (SCA) 98, 194,
341, 342, 348
National Director of Public Prosecutions v Phillips and Others 2002 (4) SA 60 (W) 178
National Energy Regulator of South Africa and Another v PG Group (Pty) Limited and Others [2019] ZACC 28
210
National Horseracing Authority of Southern Africa v Naidoo and Another 2010 (3) SA 182 (N) 91, 212
National Lotteries Board and Others v SA Education and Environment Project 2012 (4) SA 504 (SCA) 252,
253
National Transport Commission and Another v Chetty’s Motor Transport (Pty) Ltd 1972 (3) SA 726 (A) 237
National Treasury and Others v Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance and Others 2012 (6) SA 223 (CC) 339
Ndoro v South African Football Association 2018 (5) SA 630 (GJ) 92
Ngomana v CEO, South African Social Security Agency [2010] ZAWCHC 172 249, 250
Ngxuza and Others v Permanent Secretary, Department of Welfare, Eastern Cape Provincial Government and
Another 2001 (2) SA 609 (E) 280
Nichol and Another v Registrar of Pension Funds and Others 2008 (1) SA 383 (SCA) 139
Njongi v MEC, Department of Welfare, Eastern Cape, 2008 (4) SA 237 (CC) 350
Nkabinde and Another v Judicial Service Commission President of the Judicial Conduct Tribunal and Others
2015 (1) SA 279 (GJ) 73
Nkondo and Others v Minister of Law and Order 1986 (2) SA 756 (A) 245
Nomala v Permanent Secretary, Department of Welfare 2001 (8) BCLR 844 (E) 248, 249, 250
Nortje v Pool NO 1966 (3) SA 96 (A) 330, 331
Notyawa v Makana Municipality [2017] 4 All SA 533 (ECG) 99
Nyathi v MEC for Department of Health, Gauteng and Another 2008 (5) SA 94 (CC) 350
O
Ocean Ecological Adventures (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs [2019] ZAWCHC 42 208
Odifin (Pty) Ltd v Reynecke 2018 (1) SA 153 (SCA) 323
Offit Enterprises (Pty) Ltd and Another v Coega Development Corporation and Others 2010 (4) SA 242 (SCA)
83, 263
Olitzki Property Holdings v State Tender Board and Another 2001 (3) SA 1247 (SCA) 324, 326, 327, 334
Olympic Passenger Service (Pty) Ltd v Ramlagan 1957 (2) SA 382 (D) 340
Oosthuizen’s Transport (Pty) Ltd and Others v MEC, Road Traffic Matters, Mpumalanga and Others 2008 (2) SA
570 (T) 96, 246
Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance and Others v The South African National Roads Agency Ltd and Others
[2013] 4 All SA 639 (SCA) 283, 339, 340, 341
Oskil Properties (Pty) Ltd v Chairman of the Rent Control Board and Others 1985 (2) SA 234 (SE) 238
Oudekraal Estates (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town and Others 2004 (6) SA 222 (SCA) 298, 299, 300, 302,
303, 304, 305, 306
P
Patel v Witbank Town Council 1931 TPD 284 194
Pepcor Retirement Fund and Another v Financial Services Board and Another 2003 (6) SA 38 (SCA) 168
Permanent Secretary, Department of Education and Welfare, Eastern Cape, and Another v Ed-U-College (PE)
(Section21) Inc 2001 (2) SA 1 (CC) 32, 71, 148
PG Bison Ltd (in liquidation) and Others v Johannesburg Glassworks (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation) 2006 (4) SA 535
(W) 284
PG Group (Pty) Ltd v National Energy Regulator of South Africa [2018] ZASCA 56 211, 212
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of SA and Another: In Re Ex Parte President of the RSA and Others
2000 (2) SA 674 (CC) 71, 72, 74, 131, 132, 134, 150, 168, 297
Pheko and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (No 2) 2015 (5) SA 600 (CC) 346, 347
Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union and Others v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (No 1) 2008
(3) SA 91 (E) 90, 99, 182, 268
Poverty Alleviation Network and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others 2010 (6) BCLR
520 (CC) 210
Premier, Mpumalanga v Executive Committee of the Association of State-Aided Schools, Eastern Transvaal
1999 (2) SA 91 (CC) 178, 179, 269
Premier, Western Cape v Acting Chairperson, Judicial Services Commission 2010 (5) SA 634 (WCC) 158
Premier, Western Cape v Faircape Property Developers (Pty) Ltd 2003 (6) SA 13 (SCA) 334
President of the Republic of South Africa and Another v Hugo 1997 (4) SA 1 (CC) 219
President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v South African Rugby Football Union and Others 2000
(1) SA 1 (CC) 23, 32, 73, 75, 76, 77, 87, 117, 132, 166, 168, 195
President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v United Democratic Movement 2003 (1) SA 472 (CC)
342
President of the Republic of South Africa v Democratic Alliance and Others [2018] ZASCA 79 291
President of the Republic of South Africa v Democratic Alliance and Others 2020 (1) SA 428 (CC) 291
President of the RSA v SARFU 1999 (4) SA 147 (CC) 36, 191
Pretoria North Town Council v A1 Electric Ice-Cream Factory (Pty) Ltd 1953 (3) SA 1 (A) 13
Public Protector v SA Reserve Bank 2019 (6) SA 253 (CC) 290
Public Protector v South African Reserve Bank 2019 (6) SA 253 (CC) 350, 351
Pucljowski v Johnston’s Executors 1946 WLD 1 330
R
R v Chief Constable of Sussex, Ex Parte International Trader’s Ferry Ltd [1999] 1 All ER 129 (HL) 204
R v Ministry of Defence Ex Parte Smith [1996] QB 517 223
R v Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott [1988] 31 CRR 1 (SCC) 279
R v Ngwevela 1954 (1) SA 123 (A) 16, 174
R v North and East Devon Health Authority Ex Parte Coughlan (Secretary for Health and Another Intervening)
[2000] 3 All ER 850 (CA) 179
Rail Commuters Action Group and Others v Transnet Ltd t/a Metrorail and Others 2005 (2) SA 359 (CC) 335
Rainbow Civils CC v Minister of Transport and Public Works, Western Cape and Others [2013] ZAWCHC 3 36
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex Parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1 179
Rèan International Supply Company (Pty) Ltd and Others v Mpumalanga Gaming Board 1999 (8) BCLR 918
(T) 241
Reed and Others v Master of the High Court of SA and Others [2005] 2 All SA 429 (E) 139, 270
Refugee Appeal Board and Others v Mukungubila 2019 (3) SA 141 (SCA) 243
Retail Motor Industry Organisation and Another v Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs and Another
2014 (3) SA 251 (SCA) 346
Riddelsdell v Hall (1883) 2 SC 356 276
Road Accident Fund v Duma and Three Similar Cases 2013 (6) SA 9 (SCA) 139, 345
Roman v Williams NO 1997 (2) SACR 754 (C) 213, 215, 216
Rose v Johannesburg Local Road Transportation Board 1947 (4) SA 272 (W) 194
Rossouw v Sachs 1964 (2) SA 551 (A) 11
Rural Maintenance (Pty) Ltd v Maluti a-Phofong Local Municipality [2019] ZAFSHC 186 331
Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd (Rustenburg Section) v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
2007 (1) SA 576 (SCA) 209
Ruyobeza and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others 2003 (5) SA 51 (C) 194, 318, 319, 343, 344
S
S v Makwanyane and Another 1995 (3) SA 391 (CC) 31
S v Meer and Another 1981 (1) SA 739 (N) 219
S v Naudé 1975 (1) SA 681 (A) 159
S v Prefabricated Housing Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Another 1974 (1) SA 535 (A) 345
SA Predator Breeders Association and Others v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism [2011] 2 All SA
529 (SCA) 208
SACCAWU and Others v President, Industrial Tribunal, and Another 2001 (2) SA 277 (SCA) 289
Sachs and Diamond v Minister of Justice 1934 AD 11 15
Saliwa v Minister of Native Affairs 1956 (2) SA 310 (A) 16
Samons v Turnaround Management Association Southern Africa NPC and Another 2019 (2) SA 596 (GJ) 208
Sasol Oil (Pty) Ltd and Another v Metcalfe NO 2004 (5) SA 161 (W) 284
Scalabrini Centre and Others, Cape Town and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others 2013 (3) SA 531
(WCC) 84, 187, 196
Schermbrucker v Klindt NO 1965 (4) SA 606 (A) 11, 16
Schierhout v The Union Government 1919 AD 30 158
Schoonbee and Others v MEC for Education, Mpumalanga and Another 2002 (4) SA 877 (T) 213, 214, 216
Seale v Van Rooyen NO and Others; Provincial Government, North West Province v Van Rooyen NO and Others
2008 (4) SA 43 (SCA) 298
Section27 and Others v Minister of Education and Another 2013 (2) SA 40 (GNP) 281
Security Industry Alliance v Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority and Others 2015 (1) SA 169 (SCA)
168
Setlogelo v Setlogelo 1914 AD 221 339
Setshedi v Minister Ndebele and Another (2014) 35 ILJ 2861 (LC) 348
Shabangu v Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa 2020 (1) SA 305 (CC) 332
Shidiack v Union Government (Minister of the Interior) 1912 AD 642 7, 11, 130
Sibiya v Director-General: Home Affairs and Others and 55 Related Cases 2009 (5) SA 145 (KZP) 344, 345
Sidumo and Another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd and Others 2008 (2) SA 24 (CC) 134, 209
Sikutshwa v MEC for Social Development, Eastern Cape and Others 2009 (3) SA 47 (TkH) 235, 236
Sokhela and Others v MEC for Agriculture and Environmental Affairs (Kwazulu-Natal) and Others 2010 (5) SA
574 (KZP) 182
South African Association of Personal Injury Lawyers v Heath and Others 2001 (1) SA 883 (CC) 38, 41
South African Defence and Aid Fund and Another v Minister of Justice 1967 (1) SA 31 (A) 165, 166
South African Football Association v Stanton Woodrush (Pty) Ltd t/a Stan Smidt & Sons and Another 2003 (3)
SA 313 (SCA) 289
South African Liquor Traders’ Association and Others v Chairperson, Gauteng Liquor Board and Others 2009
(1) SA 565 (CC) 219
South African National Roads Agency v Cape Town City 2017 (1) SA 468 (SCA) 284
South African Police Union and Another v National Commissioner of the South African Police Service and
Another (2005) 26 ILJ 2403 (LC) 99
South African Post Office v De Lacy and Another 2009 (5) SA 255 (SCA) 324
South African Reserve Bank v Public Protector 2017 (6) SA 198 (GP) 116
South African Shore Angling Association and Another v Minister of Environmental Affairs 2002 (5) SA 511 (SE)
214
Special New Fruit Licensing Limited and Others v Colours Fruit (South Africa) (Pty) Limited and Others [2019]
ZAWCHC 83 331
Spier Properties (Pty) Ltd and Another v Chairman, Wine and Spirit Board, and Others 1999 (3) SA 832 (C)
284
State Information Technology Agency SOC Ltd v Gijima Holdings (Pty) Ltd 2018 (2) SA 23 (CC) 132, 136,
279, 285, 312, 313, 314, 315
Steenkamp and Others v EDCON Ltd 2016 (3) SA 251 (CC) 264
Steenkamp NO v Provincial Tender Board, Eastern Cape 2006 (3) SA 151 (SCA) 334
Steenkamp NO v Provincial Tender Board, Eastern Cape 2007 (3) SA 121 (CC) 25, 66, 295, 296, 302, 303,
323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 334
Syntell (Pty) Ltd v The City of Cape Town [2008] ZAWCHC 120 271
T
Tantoush v Refugee Appeal Board 2008 (1) SA 232 (T) 319, 322
Tao Ying Metal Industry (Pty) Ltd v Pooe NO and Others 2007 (5) SA 146 (SCA) 287
Telcordia Technologies Inc v Telkom SA Ltd 2007 (3) SA 266 (SCA) 287
Telematrix (Pty) Ltd t/a Matrix Vehicle Tracking v Advertising Standards Authority SA 2006 (1) SA 461 (SCA)
324, 325
Telkom SA Soc Limited v Mncube NO and Others; Mobile Telephone Networks (Pty) Ltd v Pillay NO and Others;
Cell C (Pty) Limited v Th e Chairperson of ICASA and Others; Dimension Data Middle East & Africa (Pty) Ltd
t.a Internet Solutions v ICASA and Others unreported, referred to as [2016] ZAGPPHC 93, 26 February
2016 191
The National Treasury v Kubukeli 2016 (2) SA 507 (SCA) 194
The Public Protector v Mail & Guardian Ltd and Others 2011 (4) SA 420 (SCA) 57
The Trustees of the Simcha Trust and Another v De Jong and Others 2015 (4) SA 229 (SCA) 327
Thebe Ya Bophelo Healthcare Administrators (Pty) Ltd and Others v National Bargaining Council for the Road
Freight Industry and Another 2009 (3) SA 187 (W) 209
Theron en Andere v Ring van Wellington van die NG Sendingkerk in Suid-Afrika en Andere 1976 (2) SA 1 (A)
137, 196, 203, 223, 318
Thusi v Minister of Home Affairs and Another and 71 Other Cases 2011 (2) SA 561 (KZP) 152, 153
Total Computer Services (Pty) Ltd v Municipal Manager, Potchefstroom Local Municipality 2008 (4) SA 346 (T)
207, 271
Transman (Pty) Ltd v Dick and Another 2009 (4) SA 22 (SCA) 137, 138
Transnet Ltd v Goodman Brothers (Pty) Ltd 2001 (1) SA 853 (SCA) 232, 233
Transnet Ltd v Sechaba Photoscan (Pty) Ltd 2005 (1) SA 299 (SCA) 326
Transvaal Property & Investment Co Ltd and Reinhold & Co Ltd v SA Townships Mining & Finance Corporation
Ltd & the Administrator 1938 TPD 512 340
Trencon Construction (Pty) Ltd v Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Limited 2015 (5) SA 245
(CC) 316, 318, 319, 320, 321, 351
Trinity Broadcasting (Ciskei) v Independent Communications Authority of South Africa 2004 (3) SA 346 (SCA)
205, 206, 207
Trustees for the time being of Children’s Resource Centre Trust and Others v Pioneer Food (Pty) Ltd and Others
2013 (2) SA 213 (SCA) 281
Tseleng v Chairman, Unemployment Insurance Board and Another 1995 (3) SA 162 (T) 167, 168, 259
Tshiyombo v Refugee Appeal Board and Others 2016 (4) SA 469 (WCC) 322
Turnbull-Jackson v Hibiscus Court Municipality and Others 2014 (6) SA 592 (CC) 289
Turner v Jockey Club of South Africa 1974 (3) SA 633 (A) 137, 196, 212
U
Umfolozi Transport (Edms) Bpk v Minister van Vervoer [1997] 2 All SA 548 (A) 25
Union Government (Minister of Mines and Industries) Appellants v Union Steel Corporation (South Africa) Ltd
Respondents 1928 AD 220 202
United Technical Equipment Co (Pty) Ltd v Johannesburg City Council 1987 (4) SA 343 (T) 340
University of the Western Cape and Others v Member of Executive Committee for Health and Social Services
and Others 1998 (3) SA 124 (C) 318
V
Van Eck, NO, and Van Rensburg, NO, v Etna Stores 1947 (2) SA 984 (A) 150
Van Zyl v New National Party and Others [2003] 3 All SA 737 (C) 84, 90
Viking Pony Africa Pumps (Pty) Ltd t/a Tricom Africa v Hidro-Tech Systems (Pty) Ltd and Another 2011 (1) SA
327 (CC) 94, 96
Vryenhoek and Others v Powell NO and Others 1996 (1) SA 984 (CC) 298
Vumazonke v MEC for Social Development, Eastern Cape, and Three Similar Cases 2005 (6) SA 229 (SE)
153
W
Walele v City of Cape Town and Others 2008 (6) SA 129 (CC) 94, 177, 180, 327
WDR Earthmoving Enterprises & Another v The Joe Gqabi District Municipality [2018] ZASCA 7 280
Webster v Mitchell 1948 (1) SA 1186 (W) 339
Weenen Transitional Local Council v Van Dyk 2002 (4) SA 653 (SCA) 164
Wessels v Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development and Others 2010 (1) SA 128 (GNP) 94, 95,
238
Westinghouse Electric Belgium Societe Anonyme v Eskom Holdings (Soc) Ltd and Another 2016 (3) SA 1
(SCA) 321
Wolgroeiers Afslaers (EDMS) BPK v Munisipaliteit van Kaapstad 1978 (1) SA 13 (A) 283
Wood and Others v Ondangwa Tribal Authority and Another 1975 (2) SA 294 (A) 276
WWF South Africa v Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries [2018] 4 All SA 889 (WCC) 207
Z
Zantsi v Council of State, Ciskei and Others 1995 (10) BCLR 1424 (CC) 275
Zealand v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another 2008 (4) SA 458 (CC) 210
Zondi v MEC for Traditional and Local Government Affairs and Others 2005 (3) A 589 (CC) 24, 66, 108, 134,
173, 174, 267, 268
A
Arms and Ammunition Act 75 of 1969 245
B
Births and Deaths Registration Act 51 of 1992 152
Section 9(3)(A) 152
Border Management Authority Act 2 of 2020 261, 262
Section 3 262
Section 24 262
Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act 53 of 2003 66
C
Collective Investment Schemes Control Act 45 of 2002 107
Companies Act 71 of 2008 55, 77, 196
Section 1 30, 55
Section 8 55
Section 11(3)(c)(iv) 55
Section 19(1)(a) 55
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993 (Interim Constitution) 73
Chapter 3 324
Constitutional Principle VI
Schedule 4 37, 39
Section 7(4)(a) 324
Section 24 74, 324
Section 24(b) 174
Section 237 46
Section 237(3) 46
Section 187 324
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (final Constitution) 31, 34, 41, 43, 44, 46,
70, 77, 107, 109
Chapter 9 43, 112
Chapter 10 41, 56, 112, 122
Chapter 197(1) 33
Schedule 5 47
Schedule 6 74
Section 1 31, 34, 36
Section 1(c) 132, 172
Section 1(d) 34, 173
Section 2 33, 47
Section 7 35, 47
Section 7(2) 33
Section 8 33, 35
Section 8(1) 65
Section 17 34
Section 19 197
Section 23(1) 233
Section 26 33
Section 29 33
Section 26(2) 31, 33
Section 27 47, 49, 50
Section 27(2) 47
Section 33 35, 62, 64, 65, 66, 70, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 81, 83, 100, 107, 108, 118, 129, 130, 132,
134, 136, 137, 172, 173, 174, 196, 197, 203, 225, 241, 257, 279, 295, 297, 333, 334, 339,
348
Section 33(1) 80, 93, 109, 133, 146, 163, 169, 233, 267
Section 33(2) 93, 227, 232, 233, 234, 254
Section 33(3) 35, 132, 230
Section 34 34, 107, 129, 233
Section 36 35, 47, 75, 107, 129, 215
Section 38 277, 278, 279, 291, 295, 323, 324, 327, 332, 333, 345
Section 38(a) 278, 279
Section 38(b) 280
Section 38(c) 280
Section 38(d) 279, 280, 281
Section 39 212
Section 39(3) 36
Section 43 70
Section 44 47, 70
Section 55(2) 108
Section 57 158
Section 57(1)(b) 34
Section 57(4) 165
Section 59(1)(a) 34
Section 76(1) 47
Section 83–85 70, 77
Section 84 76
Section 84(1) 45
Section 84(2) 77
Section 84(2)(a) 97
Section 85 31, 40, 46
Section 114 108
Section 118 34
Sections 125 32
Section 151(2) 32
Section 165 59, 70
Section 165(2) 58
Section 165(4) 58
Section 165(5) 59
Section 166 65
Section 172 33, 47, 294, 295, 335
Section 172(1) 296, 297, 298, 300
Section 172(1)(a) 33, 36, 297, 312, 313, 314, 315, 335, 346
Section 172(1)(b) 33, 297, 312, 314, 330, 331, 332
Section 181 56, 59
Section 181–183 56
Section 181(2) 58
Section 181(2)–(5) 57
Section 181(3) 58
Section 182 57, 117
Section 182(1) 113
Section 182(1)(a) 43, 59, 114
Section 182(1)(c) 59, 115
Section 182(2) 57
Section 184 118
Section 188 118
Section 195 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 41, 46, 104, 173
Section 195(1) 34
Section 195(1)(d) 41, 173
Section 195(1)(e) 34, 173
Section 196 33, 60, 122
Section 196(2) 33
Section 196(4) 60
Section 196(4)(b) 33
Section 196(4)(d) 123
Section 196(5) 33
Section 197 33, 103
Section 213 53, 54
section 213(1) 53
Section 216 52
Section 216(1) 53
Section 216(2) 52
Section 217 36
Section 237 307
Section 238 160
Section 239 33, 43, 45, 65, 76, 78, 87, 311
Section 239(a) 45, 57
Section 239(b) 57
Customs and Excise Act 91 of 1964 55, 220
D
Defence Act 44 of 1957 107
Section 103 107
E
Electronic Communications Act 36 of 2005 136
Eskom Conversion Act 13 of 2001 55
Section 1 55
Section 2 55
Section 6(4) 56
Executive Members’ Ethics Act 82 of 1998 113
F
Financial Services Board Act 97 of 1990 110
G
Gas Act 48 of 2001 211
Gauteng Gambling Act 4 of 1995 150
Section 18B(7) 150
Genetically Modified Organisms Act 15 of 1997 111
Section 5(1)(b) 112
Section 5(1)(b)(i) 112
Section 19(2)(a) 112
H
Higher Education Act 101 of 1997 63
Section 1 63
Section 38J 63
Section 38J(1)(a) 63, 64
I
Identification Act 68 of 1997 159, 161
Section 4 161
Section 15 153
Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 66, 214, 220
Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 73
Interpretation Act 33 of 1957 155
Section 10(3) 155
Internal Security Act 74 of 1982 107
Section 8 107
Section 11 107
Section 19 107
Section 28 107
Section 29 107
Section 41 107
J
Judicial Service Commission Act 9 of 1994 73
L
Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA) 89, 134
Section 23(1)(d) 89, 138
Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act 56 of 2003 54, 119, 124
Section 1 54
Section 60 54
Section 62 271
Section 62(3) 272
Section 93 54
Local Government: Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 64, 271
Section 62 271
Section 75A 64
Section 93J 54
M
Marine Living Resources Act 18 of 1998 207, 232
Section 5 232
Medicines and Related Substances Act 101 of 1965 85
Section 22G 85
Merchant Shipping Act 57 of 1951 265
Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 182, 189
N
National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act 103 of 1977 106, 156, 229
National Education Policy Act 27 of 1996 148, 149
Section 3(4) 148
National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 230, 240, 351
Section 24H(3) 240
Section 32(2) 351
Section 32(3) 351
National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004 240
Section 88(5) 240
National Health Act 61 of 2003 157
National Heritage Resources Act 25 of 1999 244
National Land Transport Act 5 of 2009 157
National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996 96
National Water Act 36 of 1998 47
Section 19 219
Nursing Act 33 of 2005 157, 158, 163, 165
Section 57 158, 163, 165
Section 57(1) 158
Section 57(4) 163
P
Planning Profession Act 36 of 2002 129
Section 28 129
Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act 5 of 2000 66
Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004 113
Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 97, 113, 240
Section 25(3) 240
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA) 33, 70, 109, 147,
228, 256, 294, 333
Section 1 43, 65, 66, 70, 76, 80, 94, 100, 176, 177, 180, 184, 187, 188
Section 1(i) 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 100, 232, 263
Section 1(i)(cc) 51
Section 1(i)(ii) 188
Section 1(ii) of PAJA 45
Section 1(v) 82, 83, 84, 85
Section 1(vi) 93, 256
Section 2 239
Section 3 35, 80, 93, 94, 95, 164, 172, 173, 174, 176, 177, 179, 180, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190,
191, 197, 245, 267, 268
Section 3(1) 95, 175, 177, 178, 180
Section 3(2) 184, 186
Section 3(2)(a) 180, 267
Section 3(2)(b) 165, 175, 181, 182, 183, 191
Section 3(2)(b)(i) 182, 220
Section 3(2)(b)(iii) 245
Section 3(3) 175, 181, 183, 186
Section 3(4) 181, 186
Section 3(4)(b) 186
Section 3(5) 165, 184, 268
Section 4 35, 79, 93, 94, 164, 172, 173, 174, 176, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 197, 267, 240,
268
Section 4(1) 98, 188
Section 4(1)(a) 186
Section 4(1)(b) 186, 188
Section 4(1)(c) 187, 188
Section 4(1)(d) 187, 188, 268
Section 4(1)(e) 187, 188
Section 4(2) 188
Section 4(2)(b)(iii) 240
Section 4(3) 188, 189
Section 4(4) 188
Section 5 183, 230, 231, 232, 233, 235, 237, 238, 239, 240, 254
Section 5(1) 231, 232, 233, 234, 240, 252
Section 5(2) 235, 236, 238, 239
Section 5(3) 238
Section 5(4) 239
Section 5(4)(a) 239
Section 5(4)(b) 239
Section 5(5) 239, 240
Section 5(6) 240
Section 6 65, 184, 188, 204, 277
Section 6(1) 252, 237, 277
Section 6(2) 133, 158
Section 6(3) 83
Section 6(2) 34, 133, 164, 175, 204, 274, 282
Section 6(2)(a) 157, 158
Section 6(2)(a)(i) 157, 133, 169
Section 6(2)(a)(ii) 133, 160, 169
Section 6(2)(a)(iii) 133, 191, 194
Section 6(2)(b) 133, 162, 164, 169
Section 6(2)(c) 164, 190
Section 6(2)(d) 133, 167, 168, 169, 258
Section 6(2)(e) 133
Section 6(2)(e)(i) 150, 169, 228, 260
Section 6(2)(e)(ii) 150, 169, 260
Section 6(2)(e)(iii) 166, 169, 217, 260
Section 6(2)(e)(v) 150, 169
Section 6(2)(e)(vi) 133
Section 6(2)(e)(iv) 162, 169
Section 6(2)(f)(ii) 210, 211
Section 6(2)(f)(ii)(bb) 263
Section 6(2)(g) 83, 133, 151, 169, 263, 343
Section 6(2)(h) 133, 203, 204, 209, 210, 212, 214
Section 6(2)(i) 133, 147, 162, 169, 219
Section 6(3) 83, 151, 169, 264, 343
Section 6(3)(a) 152, 153, 343
Section 6(3)(b) 343
Section 7(1) 237, 283
Section 7(1)(a) 283
Section 7(1)(b) 283
Section 7(2) 111, 138, 139, 270, 271, 283
Section 7(2)(a) 139, 270
Section 7(2)(b) 139
Section 7(2)(c) 139, 283, 287
Section 7(3) 287
Section 7(4) 287
Section 8 175, 296, 297, 318, 323, 336, 352
Section 8(1) 34, 296, 302, 343
Section 8(1)(a) 252
Section 8(1)(a)(ii) 336, 339
Section 8(1)(b) 336, 339
Section 8(1)(c) 327, 328, 329
Section 8(1)(c)(i) 317, 327
Section 8(1)(c)(ii) 327, 328
Section 8(1)(c)(ii)(aa) 318, 322, 327, 329, 346
Section 8(1)(c)(ii)(bb) 296, 323, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334
Section 8(1)(d) 335
Section 8(1)(e) 339
Section 8(2) 153, 335, 343
Section 8(2)(c) 345
Section 9 235, 236, 284
Section 9(1) 235
Section 9(2) 235, 284
Section 10 235
Section 10(1)(d) 235
Section 10(2)(a)(ii) 110
Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 113
Protected Disclosures Act 26 of 2000 113
Public Audit Act 25 of 2004 118, 119, 120, 121
Section 5A 121
Section 5B 121
Section 20(2) 119
Public Audit Amendment Act 5 of 2018 120, 121
Public Finance Management Act 1 of 1999 30, 53, 54, 56, 66, 67, 110, 119, 264
Schedule 2 55, 56
Schedule 3 55
Section 1 30, 53, 55
Section 2 53
Section 5 53
Section 6 53, 117
Section 6(2)(g) 53
Section 11(1) 53
Section 12(1) 53
Section 36(1) 53
Section 36(2) 53
Section 38 53
Section 49 56
Section 76(1) 264
Section 76(1)(b) 264
Section 76(2) 264
Section 76(2)(c) 264
Public Protector Act 23 of 1994 57, 113, 114, 115
Section 6 57
Section 6(4) 124
Section 6(4)(b) 115
Section 7 114
Public Safety Act 3 of 1953 107
Section 5B 107
Public Service Act, 1994 (Proclamation 103 of 1994) 46
Schedule 1 46, 47, 48, 51, 52, 54, 55
Section 7A 46
Section 7(5)(a) 46
R
Refugees Act 130 of 1998 185, 243, 268
Section 4(1)(b) 243
Rules Board for Courts of Law Act 107 of 1985 287
S
Schools Act 84 of 1996 149
Scientific Research Council Act 46 of 1988 156
Ship Registration Act 58 of 1998 156
Social Assistance Act 13 of 2004 82, 152, 244, 249
South African Human Rights Commission Act 40 of 2013 118
Section 13(3)(a) 118
South African Medicines and Medical Devices Regulatory Authority Act 132 of 1998 71
South African Police Service Act 68 of 1995 165
South African Revenue Service Act 34 of 1997 54, 55
Schedule 1 54
Section 2 54, 55
Section 3 55
Section 5 54
Section 6(1) 54
State Liability Act 20 of 1957 117
T
Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 124
Section 92 154
Section 98 154
Section 107(5) 124
Section 150 154
U
Unemployment Insurance Act 30 of 1966 167
Section 35(7)(a) 167
Section 35(13)(a) 167, 168
Usury Act 73 of 1968 77
Section 15A 77
V
Value-Added Tax Act 89 of 1991 55, 214, 215, 220
W
Water Services Act 108 of 1997 47, 48, 49, 50
Section 9 49
Section 9(1) 50
Section 41 50
Section 49 49
Section 61 49
Section 66 49
Section 73(1)(h) 50
Section 73(1)(j) 50
Section 74(2)(a) 50
FOREIGN LEGISLATION
Australia
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 111
Section 33 111
Tribunals Amalgamation Act 2015 (No 60, 2015) 111
USSR
Soviet Constitution 1977 31
Article 1 31
administration Those public institutions primarily concerned with the implementation of legislation and policy,
as such, and created for this very purpose.
administrative action Generally administrative action are decisions ostensibly taken under empowering
provisions in fulfilling the function of state administration and aimed at consequences outside of the
administration. This term is comprehensively and technically defined in section 1(i) of the Promotion of
Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000.
administrative justice The notion of control over and facilitation of administrative action through a range of
mechanisms, primarily based in administrative law, aimed at ensuring state administration in line with
constitutional norms.
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) A range of processes aimed at resolving a legal dispute between two
parties other than by means of courts, including negotiation, mediation and arbitration.
appeal A process in terms of which the merits of a decision are assessed to determine whether the correct
decision was taken and if not to replace the original decision with a new one.
audi alteram partem The common-law rule that requires an administrator to give a person the opportunity to
make representations before taking an action that impacts on that person.
Auditor-General One of the state institutions supporting constitutional democracy created in Chapter Nine of
the Constitution with the mandate to audit and report on the accounts, financial statements and financial
management of organs of state.
Bill A draft law that the legislature is discussing and considering. Once the President duly passes and signs the
Bill, it becomes an Act of the legislature.
Bill of Rights Chapter 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 containing fundamental
rights protected under the Constitution.
bona fide Latin term meaning ‘good faith’.
branch of government The name given in constitutional theory to the three pillars of government usually
distinguished from each other when discussing the separation of powers doctrine. These three pillars are
the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.
Cabinet In terms of section 91 of the Constitution, the Cabinet comprises of the President, Deputy President
and Ministers appointed by the President and exercising national executive authority with the President. All
members of Cabinet except the President and a maximum of two Ministers must be members of the
National Assembly. Deputy Ministers are not members of Cabinet.
case law The binding legal principles developed by courts when handing down judgments on the interpretation
and application of statutes, common law or customary law.
Chapter Nine institutions State institutions supporting constitutional democracy created in Chapter Nine of
the Constitution, which includes the Public Protector and Auditor General.
checks and balances The concept closely associated with the doctrine of separation of powers which
envisages that each of the three branches of government (the legislature, the executive and the judiciary)
will act as a check (or brake) on the exercise of power by the other two branches to prevent the abuse of
power and to ensure accountable government.
civil service Personnel constituting the public administration.
collateral challenge Resisting irregular administrative action that has not been declared invalid in proceedings
where the action is sought to be enforced against a person, the validity of the administrative action thus
forms a defence in the enforcement proceedings and is called a collateral challenge.
common law The set of legal rules and principles not contained in legislation duly passed by the legislature,
but rather inherited from the colonial powers and which are continuously being developed and enforced by
the judiciary.
compensation A court order for a party to pay another party an amount of money as appropriate relief
following the review of an administrative action.
Constitution see final Constitution.
constitutional damages Where a court finds that a person or institution has infringed the constitutional rights
of an individual and (in the absence of other appropriate remedies) orders the person or institution to pay
a sum of money to the aggrieved party to remedy the constitutional infringement.
constitutional supremacy The Constitution is the supreme authority in the state and all law and conduct is
subject to the Constitution.
contempt of court A common-law remedy which litigants may resort to when confronted with wilful and mala
fide (bad faith) non-compliance with court orders directing an opponent to do or refrain from doing
something.
damages The sum of money a court orders a person or institution to pay to somebody to compensate for the
financial or emotional harm or ‘damage’ suffered by the aggrieved party because of actions taken by the
person or institution ordered to pay the damages.
declaration of constitutional invalidity Declaration by a court in terms of section 172 of the Constitution that
the decision under scrutiny does not comply with constitutional requirements and accordingly in law never
existed.
declaration of rights A court order that declares the rights of the parties in respect of the matter before the
court.
deference The notion that courts should show respect to the constitutionally ordained role of other branches of
state when reviewing the actions of those branches.
delegation The process in terms of which the authority to take an action is transferred from one administrator
to another.
delegatus delegare non potest Latin statement meaning that a person that has been granted power generally
cannot delegate that power to another person.
Director-General The administrative head of a government department.
doctrine of objective invalidity Also referred to as the doctrine of objective unconstitutionality, this is the
principle that any legislative provision or action which is in conflict with the Constitution is assumed to be
invalid from the moment that the conflict first arose. When a court confirms the unconstitutionality and
hence invalidity of the legislative provision or action, it will automatically be invalid retrogressively from the
moment the conflict arose unless the court orders otherwise.
Executive Executive generally refers to that branch within the separation of powers primarily concerned with the
formulation of policy and the implementation of legislation and policy; this term is crucial to the study of
administrative law. It is usually understood to include both political officials (Cabinet and Deputy Ministers)
and the administration.
ex parte Latin term meaning ‘from one side’. In litigation this term refers to instances when a party approaches
a court in the absence of a respondent, that is, there is only one party to the case.
final Constitution (also Constitution) The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 finally adopted
by the democratically elected Constitutional Assembly in 1996 in terms of which South Africa has been
governed since 1997.
final interdict An order of court granting interdictory relief of permanent force and effect, that is directing a
person not to do something or to take certain action.
Freedom Charter The charter setting out core principles according to which South Africa should be governed,
adopted by the Congress of the People in 1955 in Kliptown, Soweto. This Charter formed the normative
basis of the liberation struggle in South Africa.
functus officio Doctrine in administrative law that holds that once an administrator has taken a final decision
that administrator can, as a general rule, not revoke or vary the decision.
general administrative law The principles of administrative law that are applicable to all administrative
entities, as opposed to specific administrative law which applies to specific areas such as education, the
environment, the police, the revenue service and so on.
government The term government is employed in several ways. On occasion, ‘government’ is synonymous with
‘executive’ in the wide sense, comprising both politicians and administrators. Sometimes government
refers to the high executive, that is, Cabinet, and sometimes the ruling or majority party is referred to as
the government.
grounds of review The bases or arguments in administrative law upon which a court can interfere with an
administrative action. Grounds of review in effect capture the mistakes that administrators can make in law
that would render their administrative actions subject to invalidation by a court. These are codified in
section 6(2) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000.
horizontal application Traditionally, a constitution only binds the state and prohibits it from infringing on the
rights of private individuals and institutions (and is said to apply vertically only). The South African
Constitution applies horizontally as, in certain cases, it also binds private individuals and institutions and
prohibits them from infringing on the rights of others.
human rights A set of norms and standards contained in a bill of rights or international human rights treaty
aimed at protecting the human dignity and other fundamental interests of individuals, which binds the
state (and sometimes other parties) and is usually enforced by independent courts or tribunals.
in limine Literally, ‘at the threshold’, this Latin term refers to a motion made before a trial begins which asks
the court, for example, to rule on a preliminary legal point or on the exclusion of certain evidence.
interdict An order of court directing a person not to do something (prohibitory interdict) or directing a person
to take certain action (mandatory interdict).
interim Constitution The South African Constitution according to which South Africa was governed between
1994 and 1996 while a final Constitution was being negotiated. It contained the 34 Constitutional
Principles with which the final Constitution had to comply and prescribed the process for the adoption of
the final Constitution.
interim interdict An order of court granting temporary relief directed at preserving or restoring the status quo
pending the final determination of the rights of the parties.
internal remedy A mechanism within the administration aimed at providing effective legal relief to a person
aggrieved by an administrative action taken by that administration.
invalid administrative action Administrative action that has been declared by a court as inconsistent with the
Constitution and thus invalid, meaning that the administrative action never existed in law.
ipse dixit Latin term meaning ‘he himself said it’ and referring to the situation where a claim is based purely
on a person’s own statement without any further supporting proof.
irregular (or unjust) administrative action Administrative action that does not comply with one or more of the
three basic requirements of administrative justice under section 33(1) of the Constitution, namely
lawfulness, reasonableness and procedural fairness. Irregular administrative action or unjust administrative
action covers unlawful administrative action, unreasonable administrative action and procedurally unfair
administrative action.
judicial authority The term for the power given to judges that allows them to hear a case and to decide in
favour of one party.
judicial independence The notion that judges should be free from interference by the other branches of
government or private parties and which is achieved by providing institutional safeguards.
judicial review The process through which judges review the constitutionality of actions taken by the
legislature, executive or private parties and declare such actions invalid if they are in conflict with the
Constitution. In administrative law, judicial review refers specifically to judicial scrutiny of administrative
action.
judiciary One of the three branches of government, staffed by judicial officers and led by the Chief Justice.
jurisdiction The legal authority of members of the judiciary to hear and determine judicial disputes in a
specific geographical area or on specific subject matter.
justiciability Concerns the limits on legal issues over which a court can exercise its judicial authority and thus
refers to factual or legal questions capable of being decided by a court.
justiciable In constitutional law, a matter is justiciable if courts can apply the Constitution to the factual or
legal dispute and can declare invalid action in conflict with the Constitution.
lawfulness One of the three pillars of administrative justice in terms of section 33(1) of the Constitution, which
requires all administrative action to be taken in terms of a valid legal source and in compliance with that
source.
law-making power The power of an institution such as a legislature, derived from a constitution, to pass valid
law.
legality The legal ideal that requires all exercises of public power to be rational, non-arbitrary and authorised
by law that is clear, ascertainable and non-retrospective.
legitimate expectation An expectation on the part of a person that an administrator will take a certain
decision or follow a certain procedure based on a promise made by the administrator or on a long-
established practice that the person can reasonably expect to continue.
limitation of rights When law or conduct infringes on one or more of the rights protected in the Bill of Rights,
this is called a limitation of the right. A limitation can be justified in terms of section 36 (and is then
constitutionally valid) or it can be unjustified (and is then unconstitutional).
mala fide Latin term meaning ‘in bad faith’.
Member of the Executive Council (MEC) This is a person appointed by the Premier of a province from among
the members of the provincial legislature to serve in the provincial executive, that is the equivalent of the
Cabinet at provincial level and who, along with the Premier, exercises provincial executive authority and
heads up the provincial government.
nation state A political unit consisting of an autonomous state inhabited predominantly by a people sharing a
common history.
National Assembly The lower House of the national Parliament of South Africa comprising 400 members
elected in a general election through the system of proportional representation to represent the interests of
the whole electorate.
National Council of Provinces The second House of the national Parliament of South Africa comprising 10
delegates from each province, primarily representing the interests of provinces in the national law-making
process.
nemo judex in sua causa esse debet Latin statement that states that no one should be a judge in their own
cause/interest.
norms Values or principles that direct proper, or in constitutional law, legally permissible behaviour in a society.
notice and comment procedure A procedure set out in section 4(3) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice
Act 3 of 2000, in terms of which the public or groups of the public can be consulted before administrative
action impacting on them is taken and which involves written submissions being invited on the proposed
administrative action.
organ of state In terms of section 239 of the Constitution, any department of state or administration in the
national, provincial or local sphere of government; or any other functionary or institution that exercises a
power or performs a function in terms of the Constitution or a provincial constitution; or that exercises a
public power or performs a public function in terms of any legislation. However, it does not include a court
or a judicial officer.
ouster clause A provision in a statute that attempts to prevent a court from scrutinising any action taken in
terms of that provision or statute.
Parliament In South African constitutional law it is the collective name for the National Assembly and the
National Council of Provinces, the two Houses of the national legislature empowered jointly to pass
legislation and to fulfil the other duties of the national legislature.
parliamentary supremacy This is also called parliamentary sovereignty or legislative supremacy and is a
concept in the constitutional law of some parliamentary democracies. With parliamentary sovereignty, a
legislative body (usually the democratically elected parliament) has absolute sovereignty, meaning it is
supreme to all other government institutions, including the executive and the judiciary. This means that the
legislative body may change or repeal any previous legislation and is not constrained by the constitution in
what legislation it can pass.
portfolio committees The various committees of the National Assembly tasked with processing legislation and
overseeing the implementation of legislation relating to the portfolio of each member of the Cabinet.
Premier In South Africa, the head of a provincial executive and holder of provincial executive authority. The
Premier is elected by the provincial legislature from its members.
President In South Africa, the head of state and the head of the national executive, elected by the National
Assembly from its own members, but who ceases to be a member of the National Assembly upon election
as President. The national executive authority vests in the President.
principle of subsidiarity The rule that where legislation gives effect to a constitutional right, a litigant must,
where possible, rely on the provisions of the legislation and cannot rely directly on the right concerned.
procedural fairness One of the three pillars of administrative justice under section 33(1) of the Constitution,
which requires administrative action to be taken in terms of a process that is fair towards all those affected
by the action. Procedural fairness encompasses, but is not restricted to, the common-law rules of natural
justice.
proportionality A legal principle used to decide how the right balance should be struck between conflicting
interests to accommodate the various interests optimally, usually in a fair and just manner. In
administrative law, proportionality is one standard against which the reasonableness of administrative
action can be determined and is taken to encompass the three elements of balance, necessity and
suitability.
public administration That part of the executive concerned with the implementation of legislation and of
policy.
public inquiry A procedure set out in section 4(2) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 in
terms of which the public or groups of the public can be consulted before administrative action impacting
on them is taken and which involves holding a public hearing to obtain input.
Public Protector One of the state institutions supporting constitutional democracy in South Africa created in
Chapter 9 of the Constitution with the mandate to investigate and report on any conduct in state affairs, or
in the public administration in any sphere of government, that is alleged or suspected to be improper or to
result in any impropriety or prejudice and to take appropriate remedial action.
public service The collective name for those persons who work for the national and provincial government
departments.
rationality A standard against which the reasonableness of an administrative action can be tested. Rationality
in administrative law requires a link between the administrative decision taken and the purpose of the
decision, the purpose of the empowering provision under which the action is taken, the information before
the administrator and the reasons given for the decision.
reasonableness One of the three pillars of administrative justice under section 33(1) of the Constitution,
which tests the substantive fairness of administrative action on a scale between rationality at the one end
and proportionality at the other. The particular standard for reasonableness in a given case is determined
by the context using factors set out in case law.
reasons A statement that adequately explains why the administrator took a particular administrative decision.
remittal When a court reviews and sets aside administrative action it may refer the matter back, or remit it, to
the decision-maker to enable it to reconsider the matter and make a new decision, which is called remittal.
retrospective operation When an action is declared constitutionally invalid that declaration operates from the
moment that the action was taken and the action accordingly never existed in law.
royal prerogative The powers that the Monarch as Head of State enjoyed and which were traditionally not
subject to judicial scrutiny. These powers were transferred to the State President when South Africa became
a Republic, but ceased to exist when the interim Constitution came into operation.
rule nisi A temporary order granted by a court requiring the person against whom the order is granted to show
by a certain date why the order should not become a permanent order.
rule of law An evolving constitutional principle enforceable by courts and closely related to the principle of
legality which, at a minimum, requires the legislature and the executive in every sphere only to exercise
power and perform functions if authorised to do so by law and then only in a rational manner.
rules of natural justice At common law the two rules expressed by the Latin statements nemo judex in sua
causa esse debet (no one should be a judge in their own cause/interest) and audi alteram partem (hear
the other side).
separation of powers The principle that there must be some separation of function and, in some cases,
personnel of the three branches of government.
setting aside An order by a court that the administrative action found to be constitutionally invalid does not
exist in law.
severance The remedy which allows a court to declare invalid only that part of the action which renders the
action unconstitutional to fix the unconstitutionality of the action.
socio-economic rights The set of rights that ensures that the basic social and economic needs of individuals
are met, such as the right to housing, water, health care and social assistance.
sources of administrative law The legal sources that contain the rules of administrative law, primarily the
Constitution, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 and the common law.
sources of administrative power The source of the authority in terms of which an administrator takes
administrative action, also known as empowering provisions and which can be a law, a rule of common
law, customary law, or an agreement, instrument or other document in terms of which an administrative
action was purportedly taken.
specific administrative law The principles of law that are applicable to discrete areas of administration, for
example education, the environment, the police, the revenue service and so on.
standing The right of either an individual or an organisation to bring a case to a specific court and to have that
case heard in that court.
state An organised political community occupying a certain territory and whose members live under the
authority of a constitution. The state is therefore a far broader concept than the government.
structural interdict A remedy handed down by a court ordering the government to take certain steps and to
report back to the court at regular intervals about the steps taken to comply with the Constitution.
subsidiarity See principle of subsidiarity.
substitution An order in terms of which a court replaces an invalid administrative decision with a different
decision following the review and setting aside of the original decision.
suspension of an order of invalidity A remedy in which the court, after declaring an action constitutionally
invalid, suspends that order, allowing the action to remain in operation, usually for a set period of time to
allow the administrator to fix the invalidity of the action.
trias politica The division of the state into three distinct branches – executive, judicial and legislative – in terms
of the traditional doctrine of separation of powers.
ultra vires Describes actions taken by government bodies or private institutions that exceed the scope of power
given to them by law.
values Important and lasting beliefs or ideals contained in a constitution and/or shared by the members of a
culture about what is good or bad and desirable or undesirable.
Westminster system Also called a parliamentary system, this system of government is based on the British
model in which the members of the executive branch (usually the Prime Minister and his or her Cabinet
Ministers) are appointed from among the Members of Parliament and obtain their democratic legitimacy
from the Parliament. They are members of, as well as accountable to, that body, meaning that the
executive and legislative branches are intertwined.
Page numbers in italics indicate information presented in tables or illustrations.
A
accountability
and constitutional damages 334
and costs orders 350
and democracy 34
and efficiency 20, 21
and public power 4
accounting officers 53–54
adequacy
basic element of 241
see also reasons, adequacy of
adequate notice 181–182
and tenders 220–221
administration, the 42–43
and administrative law 45
the administrative state 43–44
‘the administration,’ defining 44–45
see also South African administration, the
administrative action 12–14, 69–70, 100
AAA Investments judgment 77–79
and common law 74
and Constitution 74, 75
definitions 20–21, 79–82
and development of administrative law 73–74
essential elements 20
pre-constitutional period 74–79
pre-PAJA constitutional period 75
separation of powers, classification of state functions 70–71
seven elements of 81–82
administrative action, branches performing 71
the judiciary 73
policy branch 71–72
the public administration 72
the public legislature 72
administrative action, judicial regulation of see judicial review
administrative action, non-judicial regulation of
alternative dispute resolution 124–125
Auditor-General 118–122
control and facilitation 103–105
Human Rights Commission 118
internal controls 109–112
legislative regulation 105–109
Public Protector 113–117
Public Service Commission 122–123
specialised oversight bodies 112–123
administrative action, SARFU judgment
and the Constitution, prerogative powers 77
from institutional to functional 75–76
scope of functional approach 77
administrative action under PAJA 79–82
decision of administrative nature 82–86
definition of ‘decision’ 82–84
definitions 79–82
exercising public power, performing public function 88–92
final decisions 82–83
by organ of state or natural or juristic person 86–87
rule-making 84–86
in terms of a constitution, legislation or empowering provision 93
that adversely affects rights 93–95
that does not fall under listed exclusions 96–99
that has a direct, external legal effect 95–96
administrative and executive authority 12–14
administrative authorities 29–30
vs administrative law 65
civil service defined 32
concepts, nomenclature 30–33
constitutional supremacy 33–36
controversy in administrative law 61–67
doctrine of separation of powers 36–42
the government defined 32
identifying the administration 42–61
public administration defined 32
the state defined 30–31
administrative efficiency 247, 269
administrative justice 104
and administrative law 4
right to 17–18
administrative justice advisory council 22
administrative law 2–3, 61–62
vs ‘the administration’ 45
vs administrative authorities 65
and administrative justice 4
and administrative power 63–65
and Bill of Rights 65
and changing patterns in society 10
as constitutional law 4
defining 3–6, 61–62
dual nature of 63–64
external and internal controls 256
facilitating administrative action 104
general and particular 62, 135
and labour law 99
and public authority, functions 5
and public power 4
and role of legislature 4–5
and rule of law 6
as rules of law 5
sources of 65–66
sources of administrative power 66–67
administrative law, development of in SA 6–7
and apartheid 15–16
avenues to judicial review 23–24
challenges 26
consequences of ‘judge-made law’ 7–8
the current state 25–26
defining administrative law 3–6
and delegation of authority 10–12
and discretionary authority 10–12, 13
distinguishing between review, appeal 14–15
and executive, administrative authority 12–14
peculiar character of SA administrative law 15–16
and principle of legality 26
and private, public spheres 8–10
some basic terminology 16–17
see also Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000
administrative law, reform of in SA 17
first stage 17
fourth stage 19
second stage 17–18
superstructural reform 19–20
third stage 18–19
administrative power
and administrative law 63–65
authorised administrator 155–158
sources of 66–67
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights 31
alternative dispute resolution 124–125
and judicial review 125
and Public Protector 124
and tenders 124
apartheid
classification of functions doctrine under 12, 21
and deference 8
and development of administrative law 15–16
and discretion 11
and procedural fairness 174
and public power 4
and rights 18, 174
and rules of natural justice 16
security legislation 15
appeal and review 128–130
distinguishing between 14–15
appeal committee 157, 158, 163
appeals and interference 351
appeals tribunals 111
appeals vs reviews and remittal 316
appellant restraint, principle of 351
apprehension of bias 191, 194
apprehension of harm 339
asylum seekers 118, 185–186, 243, 321–322
see also refugees
audi alteram partem 172 see also natural justice, rules of
Auditor-General 118–122
and budgetary process 119–120
and fruitless and wasteful expenditure 120
functions 118
as institution of public administration 122
and irregular expenditure 120
and judicial review 122
key concepts 119–121
and material irregularity 120
and overspending 120
and Public Audit Amendment Act of 2018 121
remedial action 121
and unauthorised expenditure 120
Australian Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal 111
authorisation 147–148
and Constitutional Court 147–148
see also lawfulness
authorisation, how it is authorised 162–163
conditions 165–166
PAJA section 6(2)(b) and section 6(2)(c) 164–165
prescribed procedures 163–165
authorisation, what is authorised 148–149
authorisation in more than one place 149
changing a decision 154–155
discretion 149–150
omission 151–153
reason, purpose, motive 149–151
authorisation, who is authorised 155
authorised bodies 158–159
delegation 159–162
entities rather than individuals 156–157
identity of authorised administrator 155–158
influence and advice 162
particular position 156
by qualifications rather than by name or office 157
specific authorised administrator 156
authorised administrator 155–158
authority
delegation of 10–12
discretionary 10–12, 13
B
bad faith 347
balance
of convenience 339, 340, 341
of participation, efficiency 269
and proportionality 216
Batho Pele principles 103
bias 172
apprehension of 191, 194
rule against 174–175, 191, 194
and substitution 322
Bill of Rights 35, 47
and administrative law, administrative authorities 65
as check on state power 74
and constitutional supremacy 33, 34n25, 35–36
and discretionary power 257, 260
and judicial review 129, 295, 332
and ouster clauses 107
pre-1994 15–16
and rationality 205
and reasonableness 212, 215
and right to just administrative action 75
and standing 277
branches of government see administrative action, branches performing
Breakwater Declaration 17
broadcasting 88, 136n31, 206–207
budgetary process 119–120
C
Cabinet 8, 48
Chapter 9 institutions 56–57
checks and balances 37
City Power 95
civil service defined 32 see also under public service
class action 280–281
classification of functions doctrine 12–13
under apartheid 12, 21
common law 12, 74, 172
and reasonableness 202–203, 223
Code of Conduct for Public Servants 103, 123
collateral challenge 305–307
Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration 13, 134
commissions 59–61
commissions of inquiry 61, 76
and standing for judicial review 275
common law
and administrative action 12–13, 74
and avenues to review 134, 137
classification of functions doctrine 12, 74, 172
contempt of court 346
and costs orders 348
and delegation 160
and doctrine of classification of functions 12–13
and fairness 172
and grounds of review 133
inherent jurisdiction 7, 73, 179
interdicts 341
and interim interdicts 341
process of authorisation 162–163
and reasonableness 202–203
remedies 335, 341, 346
review and rationality 212
standing under 276
ultra vires doctrine 6, 16, 25
see also natural justice, rules of
compensation 323
constitutional damages 332–335
delictual damages 323–327
exceptional cases 327–330
under PAJA 327–330
and tenders 328–329
for unjustified enrichment 330–332
competing interests 140–141, 224
Constitutional Court
and authorisation 147–148
and changing a decision 154–155
defining administrative action 80–82
developing administrative law 13
and judicial review 131–132
and procedural rationality 195
process of authorisation 163
see also Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996
constitutional damages
and accountability 334
compensation 332–335
constitutional invalidity see declarations of constitutional invalidity
constitutional law 131–132
administrative law as 4, 105
disputes 125
and legality 146
constitutional supremacy 33–34
and Bill of Rights 33, 34n25, 35–36
and democracy 34–35
Section 195 of Constitution 35–36
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 18–19
and administrative authority 14
and administrative action 74, 75
delegation in the 160
and prerogative powers 77
principle of legality and review 134, 135–136
and procedural fairness 174–175
and Public Protector 114–115
and rules of natural justice 137, 196
Section 195 35–36
standing under 277
values 35–36
see also Constitutional Court
Constitution, transitional, 1993 17–18, 19
and administrative action 74
consultation 124, 182, 189, 196, 367
contempt of court 346–348
common law 346
Constitutional Court 347
obtaining against senior public officials 348
requirements 347
contractual mechanisms 256–257
corrective principle 302
costs orders 348–351
and accountability 350
and common law 348
courts
interference of 61, 127, 140, 166, 197
jurisdiction of in judicial review 285–286
state interference in 58n148
D
decision
of administrative nature 82–86, 82–86
changing a 154–155
and Constitutional Court 154–155
definition of 82–84
factors relevant to 224
failure to take a 343–345
and reasonableness, respect 223–224
reasons given for 224
remedies for failure to take 345
see also decisions
decision-makers 63, 140
identity and expertise of 223–224
and making representations 182–183
and reasonableness 166
and requesting reasons 183–184
decisions
affecting individuals, public 189–190
appealing 351
and bias 174–175, 191, 194
final 82–83
oppressive 218
on public service employment 99
and rationality 206
requiring reasons to be furnished automatically 240
see also decision
declaration of rights 335
declarations of constitutional invalidity
doctrine of objective constitutional invalidity 300–301
judicial review remedies 298–301
pre-existing rights not affected by 300–301
retrospective operation of 298–299
subsequent acts not affected by 299–300
and tenders 298–299
declining setting aside unlawful administrative action 307–311
divisibility of the tender contract 308–309
flawed tender 308
impracticability 308
middle-path remedy 309–311
and tenders 307–311, 315
uncertainty 309–310
defective decisions 155, 304–305
deference 8, 140–141
the need for 141–142
and remittal 316
and respect 222–223
see also reasonableness and respect
delay 118, 152, 283–285
and collateral challenge 306–307
and constitutional damages 332
and failure to take decision 343–345
and remedial discretion 312–315
remedies 306–307, 312–315, 320–322, 343–345
and substitution 319–322
delegated powers 93
delegation 159–162
in authorisation 159–162
of authority 10–12
in common law 160, 161
in the Constitution and PAJA 160
expressly or tacitly 160–161
influence of another person, body 161–162
and Parliament 11–12
practical necessity of 159–160
delegation of authority 10–12
delictual damages
compensation 323–327
and tenders 324–327
democracy 34–35
and accountability 34
and constitutional supremacy 34–35
participatory 34–35
Department of Water and Sanitation 47
constitutional and legislative framework 47–48
institutional structure 48, 48–49
policy formulation to legislation to litigation 50–51
power and functions 49–51
departments
vs ministries 51
national 45–55
departments vs ministries 51
dictates 162
disciplinary hearings 212
discretion
abuse of 205, 210
and apartheid 11
in authorisation 149–150
and reasonableness 210, 221
remedial, in self-reviews 312–315
discretionary authority 10–12, 13
and Parliament 10–11, 15
discretionary powers
and Bill of Rights 257, 260
in empowering provisions 260
and legislative regulation 107–108
disputes
over facts 242
privatisation of 125
public procurement 271
distinct objects clauses 262
doctrine of objective invalidity 300–301
duty and power to act 263–264
E
efficiency
and accountability 20, 21
administrative 247, 269
and participation 269
empowering provisions 66n185, 93
and legislative regulation 106–107
reiteration of and reasons 245
empowering provisions, drafting of 255–257
internal remedies 269–272
and tenders 256–257
empowering provisions, drafting of, lawfulness 257–258
certainty 258–259
clarity 258
consolidated versions 264–266
distinct objects clauses 262
duty to act 263–264
guiding discretionary powers 260
inclusion of definitions 259
interpretation 258–259
long titles, preambles 261
purpose 260–263
empowering provisions, drafting of, procedural fairness 266–267
balancing participation and efficiency 269
fair but different 268
PAJA as supplementary 267–268
energy sector 88
English law 7
and balance 216
and enrichment claims 330–331
and oppressive decisions 218
and reasons 252
enrichment claims 330–332
enrichment, unjustified, compensation for 330–332
equality 221, 233
error of law 167–168
Eskom 55–56, 56
institutional position 56
shareholding 55–56
evidence, definition 230
exclusions, listed 96–99
executive
definition of 46
dual nature of 32
executive authority
and administrative authority 12–14
of the President 31, 40
executive control over a private institution 79
executive power 13–14
and executive functions 70–71
expenditure
fruitless and wasteful 120
irregular 120
overspending 120
unauthorised 120
external and internal controls 256
extraneous sources 245
F
fair but different procedure 184–186, 189, 268
fettering 162
final decisions 82–83
final interdicts 339–340
findings, definition 230
flexibility 22, 180–181, 267
fracking in the Karoo 93–94
Freedom Charter 31
fruitless and wasteful expenditure 120
functional approach 43, 75–77
G
general administrative law 62, 135
generalia specialibus non derogant 135
Genetically Modified Organisms 111–113
government defined 32
government expenditure see expenditure
grants see social grants
green light theory 63–64
and adjudication 64, 256
H
harm, apprehension of 339
Head-of-State vs Head of Executive functions of President 76, 77
High Court
jurisdiction 124, 285–286
and review 129, 286, 287–288, 291
rules 286, 287, 288
see also Rule 53 record
human rights 9
interference with 213, 215–216, 223
see also Bill of Rights; rights
Human Rights Commission 118
I
impermissible intrusions 200
impracticability and setting aside 308
incompetence 319, 322, 324, 346
independence
of judiciaries 42
of Public Protector 57, 58–59
of Public Service Commission 60
of special masters 338–339
Industrial Revolution 44
influence
and advice in authorisation 162
and delegation 161–162
see also interference
inherent jurisdiction 7, 73
institutional approach 43
and administrative action 75–76
institutional competence of court 319
interdicts
common law 341
interim and final 339–340
mandatory 336–339
prohibitory 336–339
restraint on exercise of executive, legislative power 340–342
structural 336–339
and tenders 339
interference
and appeals 351
of courts 61, 127, 140, 166, 197
with human rights 213, 215–216, 223
of state 44, 47
see also influence
interim interdicts 339–340, 341
and common law 341
as discretionary remedies 340
requirements 339–340
internal controls 109–112
Australian Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal 111
coherent system of 111
and external controls 256
and judicial controls 111
mechanisms 110
uniformity in 109–110
internal remedies 138–139
duty to exhaust 283
and tenders 271
intervention
judicial, in administrative matters 128, 140, 222
state 10, 11, 63
invalid administrative action see declarations of constitutional invalidity
irrationality 196, 206–210, 211–212
and absence of reasons 239, 253–254
and policy content 223
procedural 195
irregular expenditure 119–120
irregularity
administrative action 294, 296, 297, 299, 302, 303–305
and compensation 323–324, 326
material 120–121, 263
procedural 190
tender processes 308, 310, 326
J
judge-made law 5
consequences of 7–8
and doctrine of separation of powers 7–8
and judicial policy 7
judicial controls and internal controls 111
judicial deference see deference
judicial intervention in administrative matters 128, 140, 222
judicial regulation see administrative action, judicial regulation of
judicial review 105, 130–132
and Auditor-General 122
and Bill of Rights 129, 295, 332
and the Constitutional Court 131–132
before constitutional democracy 130–131
and the constitutional principle of legality 132
grounds of review 133, 133–134
and internal remedies 138–139
primacy of 127–128
for reasonableness 14
review and appeal 128–130
rounds of 16–17
judicial review, avenues to 23–24, 134–138
and administrative action 23, 24
and constitutional principle of legality 135–137
and executive action 23
five pathways 134–135
and private power 137–138
judicial review, procedure for 282
courts with jurisdiction 285–286
duty to exhaust internal remedies 283
and tenders 288–289
time frame 283–285
judicial review proceedings, rules for 286–287
content of Rule 53 record 290–291
current position 287–288
value of Rule 53 record 288–290
judicial review remedies 293–294
appealing decisions on 351
compensation 323–335
costs 348–351
declaration of rights 335
declarations of constitutional invalidity 298–301
for failure to take a decision 343–345
interdicts 336–342
nature and purpose of 295–296
remittal 316–318
setting aside unlawful administrative action 302–316
substitution 318–322
two-staged approach to 296–297, 297
judicial review remedies, non-PAJA
contempt of court 346–348
severance 345–346
judiciary 73
independence of 42
jurisdictional facts 162–163
jurisdiction of courts 130–131
after 1910 7
and common law 7, 73, 179
inherent 7, 73
and internal remedies 111
magistrate’s courts 21, 288
and private arbitration 124
and public employment decisions 99
in review 285–286
supervisory jurisdiction 336, 338
justifiability 18, 107, 129–130, 213, 239
L
labour law 99
language, clear unambiguous 243–244
lawfulness 145–147, 146, 169
and empowering provisions 148
and PAJA 147, 169–170
see also authorisation; mistakes
lawfulness of empowering provisions see empowering provisions, drafting of, lawfulness
legality
and avenues to judicial review 135–137
constitutional principle of 132
principle of 26
procedural fairness and exercises of private power 194–196
and rationality 210
and reasons 253–254
and review, constitutional 134, 135–136
legislation vs policy 32, 40–41
legislative regulation 105–109
and discretionary powers 107–108
and empowering provisions 106–107
ouster clauses 107
and public money 108
restrictions 107–108
and review by the courts 108–109
legislature 72
and administrative law 4–5
legitimate expectation 18, 177–180
procedural or substantive protection of 179–180
liberty 39, 63–64
Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act 54, 124
Local Government: Municipal Systems Act 64–65
local government
and Parliament 47, 64–65
procurement appeals 271–272
long titles, preambles 261
M
magistrate’s courts, jurisdiction 21, 288
mala fides 347
mandatory interdicts 336–339
material irregularity 120
materiality 164, 168, 176
purposive test for 310
middle-path remedy 309–310, 311
ministries vs departments 51
Ministry of Finance 51
institutional structure 51–52, 52
National Treasury 52–54
South African Revenue Service 54–55
mistakes (authorisation) 166–167
error of law 167–168
mistake of fact 168–169
see also lawfulness
N
National Assembly 34, 108
members of Cabinet in 41
national departments 45–55
National Revenue Fund 53
National Treasury 52–54, 52–55
natural justice, rules of 74, 91, 172, 174
and apartheid 16
and the Constitution 137, 196
and private power 196–197
nemo judex in sua causa esse
debet 191 see also natural justice, rules of
Nkandla compound 58–59
non-judicial regulation see administrative action, non-judicial regulation of
no profit principle 302–303
notice 186–187
adequate 165, 173, 175, 181–182, 220
and comment procedure 189
of court order 347
Notice of Motion 286–287, 346
reasonable 179
of right of review or internal appeal 183–184
of right to request reasons 183–184
O
objective constitutional invalidity, doctrine of 300–301
ombuds 4, 57
omission 83, 115, 151–153
oppressive decisions 218
organs of state
and Bill of Rights 65
and Commissions of Inquiry 61
definition 87
ouster clauses 16, 107
and Bill of Rights 107
out-of-pocket expenses 303, 325–326
oversight
Chapter 9 institutions 56–57
legislature over executive 108
and Parliament 109, 121
specialised bodies 112–123
overspending 120
P
PAJA see Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000
Parliament 4
and constitutional rights 135
and delegation 11–12
and discretionary authority 10–11, 15
and oversight 109, 121
and provincial, local governments 47, 64–65
and separation of powers 7–8
and sub-delegation 11
parliamentary sovereignty 34, 131
participation and efficiency 269
participatory democracy 34–35
particular administrative law 62, 135
personal costs orders against public officials 350–351
policy branches 41–42
and the President 71–72
policy vs legislation 32, 40–41
power and duty to act 263–264 see also administrative power
preambles, long titles 261
Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act 66
prerogative powers and Constitution 77
President
and commissions of inquiry 61, 159
executive authority of 31, 40
Head-of-State vs Head of Executive functions 76, 77
and Ministries 48
and national departments 45–46
and policy branch 71–72
and prerogative powers 77
private arbitration and jurisdiction 124
private institutions
executive control over 79
performing public functions. 87
private law 45, 131
remedies 295, 323
private power
and judicial review 137–138
and procedural fairness 196–197
rules of and natural justice 196–197
private, public spheres 8–10
privatisation
of disputes 125
of state resources 9, 10
procedural fairness 171–174
and common law 172
in the constitutional era 174–175
contextual requirements 267
and exercises of private power 196–197
exercises of public power not amounting to administrative action 194–196
and procedural rationality 195
the rule against bias 191, 194
see also empowering provisions, drafting of, procedural fairness
procedural fairness under PAJA 192–193
consequences of failure to follow 190–191
decisions affecting individuals, public 189–190
procedural fairness under PAJA section 3 175
adequate notice 181–182
any person 176
clear statement of administrative action 183
consequences of failure to follow fair procedure 190–191
fair but different procedure 184–186
flexibility 180–181
legitimate expectation 177–180
materiality 176
notice of right of review, internal appeal 183–184
notice of the right to request reasons 183–184
procedural, substantive protection of legitimate expectations 179–180
reasonable opportunity to make representations 182–183
requirements of section 3, how they apply 180–186
rights 177, 183–184
when it applies 175–180
procedural fairness under PAJA section 4 186–187
consequences of failure to follow fair procedure 190–191
fair but different procedure 189
notice and comment procedure 189
procedures 188–189
and the public 187
public inquiry 188–189
requirements of 188–189
when it applies 187
procedural rationality 195
prohibitory interdicts 336–339
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 19, 353–367
balancing accountability with efficiency 20, 21
defining administrative action 20–21
defining ‘administrator’ 45
defining ‘organ of state’ 45
and delegation 160
effect on development of administrative justice 22
and empowering provisions 267–268
and lawfulness 147, 169–170
outline of general structure 20–22
and possible grounds of review 21–22
pragmatic exclusions 97–98
and procedural fairness 21
procedural fairness and empowering provisions 267–268
procedures in seeking to review 22
rationality under 205–210
rule-making under 84–86
and reasonableness 203–205
section 8(1)(c)(ii)(bb) 327–330
separation of powers exclusions 97
standing under 277–279
see also administrative action under PAJA; procedural fairness under PAJA; reasons, right to in section 5 of
PAJA
proportionality 212–213
confining proportionality review 217
English law and oppressive decisions 218
in South African courts 213–215
test for in SA administrative law? 215–218
see also reasonableness
provincial government and Parliament 47, 64–65
public administration defined 32
public and private spheres 8–10
Public Audit Act 118–119
Public Audit Amendment Act of 2018 121
public authority, functions 5
public employment decisions and jurisdiction 99
public entities, definition 55
Public Finance Management Act 53–54
public function 5, 88–92
as contextual 88
public inquiries 188–189, 358
public interest 90–91
and standing 281–282
public law 2, 30, 61, 131
remedies 295, 323, 346
rights 95
public money and legislative regulation 108
public policy and delictual claims 325
public power 4
and accountability 4
not amounting to administrative action 194–196
and public function 88–92
public procurement 66, 271–272, 320–321, 330
see also tenders
Public Protector 56–59, 113–117
actions of as administrative action 116–117
and alternative dispute resolution 124
as an organ of state 57
and Constitution 114–115
functions 57
governing principles 57
independence of 57, 58–59
key role 114
mandate 113
remedial powers 115–116
Public Protector Act 114–115
public service 103–104
Code of Conduct for Public Servants 103, 123
employment decisions 99
Public Service Commission 60–61, 122–123
authority 123
and the Constitution 60–61, 122–123
functions 122–123
independence of 60
public, procedural fairness 187
punitive costs 350–351
Q
qualifications, authorisation by 157
R
race classification 15
rail services 88
rationality
and Bill of Rights 205
and common-law review 212
and decisions 206
and legality 210
under PAJA 205–210
of process 210–212
and reasonableness 17, 209–210
reactive challenge 305–307
reasonableness 199–201
and Bill of Rights 212, 215
and classification of functions doctrine 202–203, 223
common-law approach to 202–203
of consequences 14
and discretion 210, 221
factors relevant in determining 205
and PAJA 203–205
and rationality 17, 209–210
reasonableness generally 221
and related grounds of review 202
symptomatic unreasonableness 202–205
and tenders 221
types of unreasonableness cases 201
vagueness 219–221
see also proportionality; rationality
reasonableness and respect 222–223
factors influencing reasonableness review 223–225
identity and expertise of decision-maker 223–224
impact on those affected 224–225
judicial deference and respect 222–223
nature of competing interests involved 224
and nature of decision 223
range of factors relevant to decision 224
reasons given for decision 224
see also deference
reasons 227–231
inconsistent sets of 252–253
informing appropriate reaction to administrative action 229
and legality 253–254
procedure and remedies 251–252
and findings, information, evidence 230–231
supplementing upon review 253
and tenders 232, 250
reasons, adequacy of 240–250
and administrator’s finding on the facts 242
and administrator’s reasoning process 242–243
and administrator’s understanding of relevant law 242
appropriate length 244
appropriate level of detail 244
basic element of adequacy 241
characteristics of adequate reasons 242–245
and clear unambiguous language 243–244
factors influencing adequacy 246–247, 247–248
impact and detail of reasons 244
prerequisites for adequate reasons 247
reasons revealing possible grounds of review ‘adequate’? 251
and reiteration of empowering provisions 245
standard form reasons 248–250
reasons, right to in section 5 of PAJA 231
decisions requiring reasons to be furnished automatically 240
departure from requirements 239
failure to give reasons 237–239
persons who have not been given reasons 234
person whose rights have been affected 232–234
providing reasons 235–237
requesting reasons 231–232, 232–234
what to do in order to obtain reasons 234–235
who may request reasons? 232–234
record of proceedings 290
redetermination and remittal 317–318
red light, green light theory 63–64
and adjudication 64, 256
reform see administrative law, reform of in SA
Refugee Appeal Board 118, 207, 322
refugees 118, 185–186, 234, 321–322, 343
see also asylum seekers
regulation see legislative regulation
remedial discretion in self-reviews 312–315
remedial powers of Public Protector 115–116
remedies
and common law 335, 341, 346
see also judicial review remedies
remittal 316–318
and appeals vs reviews 316
and deference 316
and redetermination 317–318
and substitution 316
and tenders 317
see also substitution in remittal
representative democracy 34
respect
and judicial deference 222–223
see also reasonableness and respect
restraint on exercise of executive, legislative power 340–342
review see judicial review
review and appeal 128–130
distinguishing between 14–15
see also judicial review
right
to administrative justice 17–18
to reasons 231
to request reasons, notice of 183–184
of review, appeal, notice of 183–184
of review or internal appeal 183–184
see also reasons, right to in section 5 of PAJA
rights
and administrative action 93–95
adversely affected 93–95
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights 31
and apartheid 18, 174
constitutional, and Parliament 135
declaration of 335
and discretionary power 257, 260
pre-existing and constitutional invalidity 300–301
and procedural fairness 177
procedural fairness under PAJA section 3 177
public-law 95
socio-economic 25, 44, 337
see also Bill of Rights; human rights
Roman-Dutch law 5
rubberstamping 162
Rule 53 record 290–291
content of 290–291
value of 288–290
rule-making under PAJA 84–86
rule of law 6, 23, 34, 66, 145–146, 305
and rationality 205
and vagueness 219
rules of law 5
rules of natural justice see natural justice, rules of
S
SARFU judgment see administrative action, SARFU judgment
self-review by state 312–315
separation of powers doctrine 36–37, 37 70–71
and the administration 40–42, 42
normative nature of 39
pure doctrine 36–37
and reasonableness of administrative action 200
in South Africa 37–38, 38
service-delivery protests 30n2, 67
setting aside unlawful administrative action 302–303
collateral or reactive challenge 305–307
and impracticability 308
legal effect of invalid administrative action 303–305
remedial discretion in self-reviews 312–315
and tenders 302–303
when courts will decline 307–311
severance 345–346
social grants
as administrative action 82
and constitutional damages 332
and interdicts 336
and omissions 152–153
and reasons 248–249
and remedies for failure to take decision 345
and setting aside 302, 303, 310–313
and standing 274, 280
socio-economic rights 25, 44, 337
South African administration, the 45
commissions 59–61
national departments 45–55
National Treasury 52–55
Public Protector 56–59
state-owned company: Eskom 55–56, 56
South African Revenue Service Act 54–55
special masters 338–339
sport, control of and administrative action 91–92
standing for judicial review 274
and Bill of Rights 277
and commissions of inquiry 275
concept of standing 274–275
procedure for judicial review 282–291
rationale for standing requirement 275–276
standing under common law 276
standing under PAJA 277–279
standing under section 38 of Constitution 277
and tenders 274, 279–280
and welfare grants 274
standing in practice
an association acting in interest of members 282
anyone acting in own interest 279–280
anyone acting in public interest 281–282
anyone acting on behalf of another 280
for a group or class of persons 280–281
standing to sue 16
state, definition of 30–31, 47, 84
state functions, classification of 70–71
state interference 44, 58n148
state intervention 63
in socio-economic sphere 10, 11
state-owned companies
definition 55
Eskom 55–56, 56
state, the
interference of 44, 47
self-review 312–315
structural interdicts 336–339
sub-delegation of administrative authority 10–11
substitution
judicial review remedies 318–322
and tenders 319, 320–321, 322
substitution in remittal 316, 318
alternatives to full substitution orders 322
applying the test: illustrative cases 320–322
test for 318–319
supervisory jurisdiction 336, 338
Supply Chain Management Regulations 124
Supreme Court of Appeal
on Public Protector 57
and review and appeal 14
symptomatic unreasonableness 202–205
T
tacit authority to delegate 161
Tax Administration Act 124
tax law 66, 154
telecommunications 88
temporary interdicts 339
Tender Boards 66, 72, 250
tender process
as administrative action 25, 66
and alternative dispute resolution 124
and compensation 328–329
and declarations of constitutional invalidity 298–299
and declining to set aside 307–311, 315
and delictual damages 324–327
divisibility of contract 308–309
and drafting of empowering provisions 256–257
flawed 308
and interdicts 339
and internal remedies 271
and procedure for judicial review 288–289
and reasonableness 221
and reasons 232, 250
and remittal 317
and setting aside 302–303
and standing 274, 279–280
and substitution 319, 320–321, 322
transparency 52, 195
treasury see National Treasury
trias politica 37, 37, 40
true discretion 351
U
ultra vires doctrine 6, 16, 25
unauthorised expenditure 120
uncertainty, declining setting aside 309–310
unjustified enrichment 330–332
unreasonableness
symptomatic 202–205
types of cases 201
V
vagueness 202, 219–221
and procedural fairness 220
values, constitutional 35–36
W
wasteful expenditure 120
water and sanitation see Department of Water and Sanitation
welfare grants see social grants
Z
Zuma, President Jacob 58–59