Tjaart Jurgens Maré Doctor Legum Universiteit van die Vrystaat
Tjaart Jurgens Maré Doctor Legum Universiteit van die Vrystaat 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).
366 applikant geregtig was op prosedurele billikheid in die aanstellingsproses, en op hersiening van die proses waar op die applikant se regte inbreuk gemaak word. Die hof beslis soos volg : 769 “The procedure that was in fact followed, i.e. according to the reasons, deviated from both the formal and informal processes set out in the interim measures and materially and adversely affected Dunn’s aforementioned rights. As stated above, the decision of the Minister is based on a multi-phased process, comprising a nomination phase, an evaluation and selection phase and finally the appointment phase. During the crucial evaluation phase, Dunn was deprived of the opportunity to enjoy any of the benefits attached to his aforementioned rights. This failure constitutes procedural unfairness as contemplated in section 3 of PAJA. The deprivation of such opportunities cannot be said to be immaterial. Self-evidently it also had an adverse effect on Dunn.” Bogemelde sake is slegs ʼn paar voorbeelde van hoe die howe Artikel 3 van PAJA toepas om administratiewe geregtigheid te kan bewerkstellig. 770 769 2006(2) SA 107 (TPD) Paragraaf 27. 770 Vir verdere gesag rakende artikel 3 van PAJA, sien die volgende:Smith v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Republic of South Africa and Another 2003(1) ALL SA 628 (C); Minister of Safety and Security v Mashego and Others 2003(6) BLLR 578 (LC); Magingxa v National Commissioner, SA Police Service and Others 2003(4) SH101 (TK); Logbro Properties CC v Bedderson NO and Others 2003(2) SA 460 (SCA); Radio Pretoria v Chairman of ICASA and Another 2003 JOL 10732 (T); Ndindwa v Mnguma Local Municipality 2003 JOL 11026 (TK); Smith v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Republic of South Africa and Another 2003(1) ALL SA 628 (C); Minister of Environmental Affairs and Another v Pepper Bay Fishing (Pty) Limited; Minister of Environmental Affairs and Another v Smith 2003(4) ALL SA 1 (SCA); 2003 JOL 11448; 2004(1) SA 308 (SCA); Metro Projects CC and Another v Klerksdorp Local Municipality and Others, 2004(1) ALL SA 504 (SCA); 2003 JOL 11590; 2004(1) SA 16; Schoon v MEC, Department of Finance, Economic Affairs and Tourism, Northern Province and Another 2003(9) BLLR 963 (T); SA National Defence Union and Another v Minister of Defence and Others:In re SA National Defence Union v Minister of Defence and Others 2003 JOL 11263 (T); Mhlambi v Matjhabeng Municipality and Another 2003(5) SA 89 (O); Van Zyl v New National Party and Others 2003(3) ALL SA 737 (C); 2003 JOL 11360; Boesak v Chairman Legal Aid Board and Others 2003(6) SA 382 (T); Radio Pretoria v Chariman of ICASA and Another 2003 JOL 10732 (T); De Beer v Health Professions Council of South Africa 2004 JOL 12606 (T); SA National Defence Union and Another v Minister of Defence and Others 2004(4) SA 10 (T); South African Jewish Board of Deputies v Sutherland NO and Others 2004(4) SA 368 (W); Minister of Safety and Security and Another v Nombungu and Others 2004(4) SA 392 (T); SA National Defence Union and Another v Minister of Defence and Others. In re SA National Defence Union v Minister of Defence and Others 2003 JOL 11263 (T); Earthlife Africa (Cape Town) v Director-General:Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Another 2005(3) SA 156 (C); Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Another v Scenematic Fourteen (Pty) Limited 2005(2) ALL SA 239 (SCA); Commissioner, South African Revenue Service v Hawker Aviation Services Partnership and Others 2005(5) SA 283 (T); MEC:Department of Finance, Economic Affairs and Tourism, Northern Province v Mahumani 2005(2) ALL SA 479 (SCA); Greys Marine Hout Bay (Pty) Limited and Others v Minister of Public works and Others 2005(3) ALL SA 33 (SCA); Trend Finance (Pty) Limited and Another v Commissioner for SARS and Another (2005) 4ALL SA 657 (C); Seodin Primary School and Others v MEC of Education, Northern Cape and Others (2006) 1 ALL SA 154 (NC).
- Page 325 and 326: 314 Uit die definisie van administr
- Page 327 and 328: 316 verhoudings heg. Algemene verho
- Page 329 and 330: 318 bepaal of administratiewe optre
- Page 331 and 332: 320 van ʼn besluit om dagvaardings
- Page 333 and 334: 4.3 DIT MOET GEMAAK WORD INGEVOLGE
- Page 335 and 336: 324 (ii) wat ingevolge wetgewing ʼn
- Page 337 and 338: 326 alle gevalle van toepassing wee
- Page 339 and 340: 328 Artikel bepaal dat nasionale we
- Page 341 and 342: 330 Daar is dus geen twyfel nie dat
- Page 343 and 344: 726 Currie en Klaaren, 2001:82. 332
- Page 345 and 346: 334 (cc) Die uitvoerende bevoegdhed
- Page 347 and 348: 336 laasgenoemde geval sal hierdie
- Page 349 and 350: 338 Grondwet gedefinieer word nie,
- Page 351 and 352: 340 • Die Premier se funksies ten
- Page 353 and 354: 342 maak van by-wette ten opsigte v
- Page 355 and 356: 344 In die Volkswagen-saak het die
- Page 357 and 358: 346 en die blatante uitsluiting daa
- Page 359 and 360: provincial, regional and local - an
- Page 361 and 362: 350 Uit die bogemelde gewysdes, is
- Page 363 and 364: (b) In order to give effect to the
- Page 365 and 366: 354 begrip te herdefinieer, om sodo
- Page 367 and 368: 356 2.2.3 ʼn DUIDELIKE UITEENSETTIN
- Page 369 and 370: 358 Dit mag andersins ook onbillik
- Page 371 and 372: 360 nakom. Terwyl Artikel 3(2)(b)(b
- Page 373 and 374: 759 2003 JOL 11026 (TK). 760 1948(3
- Page 375: 765 2005(3) SA 25 (A). “In determ
- Page 379 and 380: (3) If an administrator decides to
- Page 381 and 382: 773 1991(4) SA 1 (A). 370 Currie en
- Page 383 and 384: 372 dat aan ʼn sekere voorgeskrewe
- Page 385 and 386: 2. KENNISGEWING EN KOMMENTAAR 374 p
- Page 387 and 388: 376 hierdie vereiste egter oorbodig
- Page 389 and 390: 378 Gesien in die lig van die belan
- Page 391 and 392: 777 2005(3) SA 156 (C). 778 2006(2)
- Page 393 and 394: Hoofstuk 5 REDES VIR ʼn ADMINISTRAT
- Page 395 and 396: Die waardes wat die verskaffing van
- Page 397 and 398: 386 Hoe openbaar moet die voor-vers
- Page 399 and 400: 388 word. Die vasgestelde-tydperkve
- Page 401 and 402: 390 het. In hierdie saak oor die re
- Page 403 and 404: 392 moet dra, so ʼn lys te publisee
- Page 405 and 406: 394 Grondwet, wat handel oor die ve
- Page 407 and 408: 396 In Maharaj v Chairman, Liquor L
- Page 409 and 410: 398 tendervoorwaarde, wat bepaal da
- Page 411 and 412: 400 maak vir die hersiening op gron
- Page 413 and 414: purportedly taken, is so unreasonab
- Page 415 and 416: 404 Die betrokke Wet (en die Grond
- Page 417 and 418: 406 ʼn Padvervoerraad wat gemagtig
- Page 419 and 420: 408 bevoegdheid is, wanneer die hoo
- Page 421 and 422: 410 nie. Die tweede respondent het
- Page 423 and 424: 412 4 van die Wet op die Raad op Ta
- Page 425 and 426: 414 Die toepassing van Artikel 6(2)
366<br />
applikant geregtig was op prosedurele billikheid in <strong>die</strong> aanstellingsproses, en op<br />
hersiening <strong>van</strong> <strong>die</strong> proses waar op <strong>die</strong> applikant se regte inbreuk gemaak word.<br />
Die hof beslis soos volg : 769<br />
“The procedure that was in fact followed, i.e. according to the reasons,<br />
deviated from both the formal and informal processes set out in the interim<br />
measures and materially and adversely affected Dunn’s aforementioned rights.<br />
As stated above, the decision of the Minister is based on a multi-phased<br />
process, comprising a nomination phase, an evaluation and selection phase<br />
and finally the appointment phase. During the crucial evaluation phase, Dunn<br />
was deprived of the opportunity to enjoy any of the benefits attached to his<br />
aforementioned rights. This failure constitutes procedural unfairness as<br />
contemplated in section 3 of PAJA. The deprivation of such opportunities<br />
cannot be said to be immaterial. Self-evidently it also had an adverse effect on<br />
Dunn.”<br />
Bogemelde sake is slegs ʼn paar voorbeelde <strong>van</strong> hoe <strong>die</strong> howe Artikel 3 <strong>van</strong> PAJA<br />
toepas om administratiewe geregtigheid te kan bewerkstellig. 770<br />
769 2006(2) SA 107 (TPD) Paragraaf 27.<br />
770 Vir verdere gesag rakende artikel 3 <strong>van</strong> PAJA, sien <strong>die</strong> volgende:Smith v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Republic of South Africa and<br />
Another 2003(1) ALL SA 628 (C); Minister of Safety and Security v Mashego and Others 2003(6) BLLR 578 (LC); Magingxa v National Commissioner, SA<br />
Police Service and Others 2003(4) SH101 (TK); Logbro Properties CC v Bedderson NO and Others 2003(2) SA 460 (SCA); Radio Pretoria v Chairman of<br />
ICASA and Another 2003 JOL 10732 (T); Ndindwa v Mnguma Local Municipality 2003 JOL 11026 (TK); Smith v Minister of Environmental Affairs and<br />
Tourism, Republic of South Africa and Another 2003(1) ALL SA 628 (C); Minister of Environmental Affairs and Another v Pepper Bay Fishing (Pty) Limited;<br />
Minister of Environmental Affairs and Another v Smith 2003(4) ALL SA 1 (SCA); 2003 JOL 11448; 2004(1) SA 308 (SCA); Metro Projects CC and Another<br />
v Klerksdorp Local Municipality and Others, 2004(1) ALL SA 504 (SCA); 2003 JOL 11590; 2004(1) SA 16; Schoon v MEC, Department of Finance,<br />
Economic Affairs and Tourism, Northern Province and Another 2003(9) BLLR 963 (T); SA National Defence Union and Another v Minister of Defence and<br />
Others:In re SA National Defence Union v Minister of Defence and Others 2003 JOL 11263 (T); Mhlambi v Matjhabeng Municipality and Another 2003(5)<br />
SA 89 (O); Van Zyl v New National Party and Others 2003(3) ALL SA 737 (C); 2003 JOL 11360; Boesak v Chairman Legal Aid Board and Others 2003(6)<br />
SA 382 (T); Radio Pretoria v Chariman of ICASA and Another 2003 JOL 10732 (T); De Beer v Health Professions Council of South Africa 2004 JOL 12606<br />
(T); SA National Defence Union and Another v Minister of Defence and Others 2004(4) SA 10 (T); South African Jewish Board of Deputies v Sutherland<br />
NO and Others 2004(4) SA 368 (W); Minister of Safety and Security and Another v Nombungu and Others 2004(4) SA 392 (T); SA National Defence Union<br />
and Another v Minister of Defence and Others. In re SA National Defence Union v Minister of Defence and Others 2003 JOL 11263 (T); Earthlife Africa<br />
(Cape Town) v Director-General:Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Another 2005(3) SA 156 (C); Minister of Environmental Affairs and<br />
Tourism and Another v Scenematic Fourteen (Pty) Limited 2005(2) ALL SA 239 (SCA); Commissioner, South African Revenue Service v Hawker Aviation<br />
Services Partnership and Others 2005(5) SA 283 (T); MEC:Department of Finance, Economic Affairs and Tourism, Northern Province v Mahumani 2005(2)<br />
ALL SA 479 (SCA); Greys Marine Hout Bay (Pty) Limited and Others v Minister of Public works and Others 2005(3) ALL SA 33 (SCA); Trend Finance (Pty)<br />
Limited and Another v Commissioner for SARS and Another (2005) 4ALL SA 657 (C); Seodin Primary School and Others v MEC of Education, Northern<br />
Cape and Others (2006) 1 ALL SA 154 (NC).