Tjaart Jurgens Maré Doctor Legum Universiteit van die Vrystaat

409
derde respondent gedelegeer het, en wat as enkel voorsittende beampte van die
appèlkomitee moes sitting inneem. Die applikant het aangevoer dat die delegasie
van die bevoegdhede ultra vires was, aangesien die raad op self moes besluit het
om die applikant te ontslaan.
Die hof het die volgende beslis : 825
“The power to delegate must be clearly provided for, either expressly or
impliedly : Baxter, Administrative Law at 432. There is a rebuttable commonlaw
presumption against implied power of delegation (delegates non protest
delegare) – Baxter at 433; See also Hoexter, The New Constitutional and
Administrative Law (2002) Vol II at 134. Delegation of power without express
authority is prima facie indicative of the unlawful abdication of power : Baxter
at 434. Where there is no express authority to delegate, as is the case in the
matter before us, it falls upon the delegator (the first respondent) to show that
it is clothed with the power of delegation by necessary implication ex facie the
empowering legislation (in casu the collective agreement); See Attorney-
General, OFS v Cyril Anderson Investments (Pty) Limited 1965(4) SA 628 (A)
at 639.”
Nadat die hof die meriete van die applikant se saak oorweeg het, is die aansoek op
die volgende gronde van die hand gewys : 826
“11.1 Section 59 of Act 32 of 2000 confers a general power of delegation
upon municipalities – the power to delegate the authority to hear an
appeal is not included among the matters specifically excluded from
being delegated in that section.
11.2 The prevailing legislation (the collective agreement) contains no
express or implied prohibition on delegation in clause 7.2.8 [the clause
upon which the applicant relied].
11.3 Taking into account all the relevant factors, the probabilities, are
overwhelmingly in favour of a finding that delegation of the power to
hear the appeal is permitted.”
In Scenematic Fourteen (Pty) Limited v Minister of Environmental Affairs and
Tourism and Another827 het die applikant aansoek gedoen om die tersydestelling
van ʼn besluit om nie-kommersiële visvangregte aan hom toe te staan. Die tweede
respondent moes sy diskresie uitoefen of visvangregte toegeken gaan word, al dan
825 (2004(2) ALL SA 31 (NC), paragraaf 10:1 – 10:2.
826 2004(2) ALL SA 31 (NC), Paragraaf 11.
827 2004(4) BCLR 430 (C); Vir verdere verwysing na die delegasie van bevoegdhede, sien ook Kimberley Girls’ High School v Head of Department of
Education, Northern Cape Province and Others 2005(1) ALL SA 360 (NC).