Tjaart Jurgens Maré Doctor Legum Universiteit van die Vrystaat

765 2005(3) SA 25 (A).
“In determining what constitutes procedural fairness in a given case, a court
should be slow to impose obligations upon government which will inhibit its
ability to make and implement policy effectively…… As a young democracy
facing immense challenges of transformation, we cannot deny the importance
of the need to ensure the ability of the Executive to act efficiently and promptly.
On the other hand, to permit the implementation of retroactive decisions
without, for example, affording parties an effective opportunity to make
representations would flout another important principle, that of procedural
fairness.”
Die hof het die volgende beslis ten opsigte van Artikel 3 van PAJA :
“The gravity of the issue called and calls for a formal hearing. The applicant
requested a formal hearing from the outset and motivated why such a hearing
was necessary ….. The first respondent, by denying the applicant a formal
hearing, denied it access to a forum to challenge and debate a matter of
considerable gravity (of Islamic Unity Convention v Independent Broadcasting
Authority and Others (supra paras [45] – [50] at 312-314)). In these
circumstances, the refusal to convene a formal hearing violated applicant’s
right to procedurally fair administrative action.”
364
In Zondi v MEC for Traditional and Local Government Affairs and Others765 het die
hof beslis dat die skut van vee ingevolge die Skut Ordonnansie 32 van 1947 (KZN)
neerkom op ʼn administratiewe handeling, en dat dit onderhewig is aan die vereistes
vir billike prosedure soos gedefinieer in Artikel 3 van PAJA.
Die hof het beslis dat die bevoegdheid wat verleen word aan grondeienaars om te
besluit of ʼn ander party se vee wat die grondeienaar se grond betree het, te skut,
van kant te maak of te verkoop inbreuk maak op die grondwetlike reg ingevolge
Artikel 34 van die Grondwet. Die artikel bepaal dat elkeen die reg het om enige
dispuut wat opgelos kan word deur die toepassing van die reg, kan laat beslis in ʼn
billike verhoor voor ʼn hof, of waar toepaslik, ʼn onafhanklike en onpartydige tribunaal
of forum.
Op 321 – J beslis die hof soos volg :
“The landowner acts as judge and prosecutor or lawyer or party or witness. It
follows that section 16(1) of the ordinance is inconsistent with section 33 of the
Constitution read with sections 3(1) and (2) of PAJA and inconsistent with
section 34 of the Constitution.”