Tjaart Jurgens Maré Doctor Legum Universiteit van die Vrystaat

365
In Maleka v Health Professionals Council of SA and Another766 is die applikant deur
die registrateur van die rol van mediese praktisyns verwyder, sonder dat die
applikant daarvan in kennis gestel is, of die geleentheid aan die applikant gebied
was om aangehoor te word, voordat die drastiese stap geneem is. Regter Jones
beslis dat dit onbillike administratiewe optrede daargestel het. Die regter verwys nie
spesifiek na Artikel 3 van PAJA nie, hoewel die artikel hier direk van toepassing
was. Artikels 3(2)(b)(i) en (ii) bepaal dat billike administratiewe optrede verlang dat
ʼn administrateur ʼn party voldoende kennis moet gee aangaande die aard en doel
van die voorgenome administratiewe aksie en ʼn redelike geleentheid om
voorleggings (verdediging) aan die administrateur te maak.
Wanneer die howe die hersiening van handelinge aan die hand van billike
administratiewe optrede meet, word elke saak op eie meriete beslis. Met verwysing
na die bepalings van Artikel 3(2)(a) van PAJA en die hersieningsaspek hieraan
gekoppel, kom die hof tot die volgende gevolgtrekking in die saak van Chairperson :
Standing Tender Committee and Others v JFE Sapela Electronics (Pty) Limited and
Others. 767
“In the present case, what in effect occurred is that Nolitha’s tender, with the
latter’s written consent, was adjusted by the reallocation of an amount overquoted
for one, or rather two items, to most of the remaining maintenance
items for installation A-P for which Nolitha had under-quoted. The effect was
apparently to convert a tender from one regarded by the engineer as
unbalanced and a financial risk to one which was acceptable. But the offer
made by Nolitha, as embodied in its tender, was not the one ultimately
accepted. What was accepted was in truth an offer made on 7 November
2003, some two months after the closing date for tenders. In my view this was
enough to trim the tender process of the element of fairness which requires the
equal evaluation of tenders. It follows that the acceptance of the Nolitha tender
and the award of the contracts were correctly held by the Court a quo to be
reviewable.”
In Dunn v Minister of Defence and Others768 het die applikant ʼn
hersieningsaansoek gebring vir die tersydestelling van die aanstelling van ene
Coetzee. Dunn het aansoek gedoen vir die pos van Hoof van die Teenbedrog
Afdeling (Anti Fraud Division) van die Departement van Verdediging.
Nadat die hof bevind het dat dié aanstelling neerkom op ʼn administratiewe
handeling ingevolge PAJA, gaan regter Van Rooyen voort deur te bepaal dat die
766 2005(4) ALL SA 72 (ECD).
767 2005(4) ALL SA 487 (SCA) by paragraaf 19.
768 2006(2) SA 107 (TPD).