Tjaart Jurgens Maré Doctor Legum Universiteit van die Vrystaat

481
verwys nie. Nadat die hof die toekenning van die tender aan die 3de
respondent tersyde gestel het, het die hof (Par. 41-42) Artikel 8(1)(c)(ii) van
PAJA toegepas, bewus van die traagheid van howe om die besluite van
administrateurs met die howe se eie toekennings/besluite te vervang :
“In my view, on the information that was before it, and had the Tender
Board applied the provisions of the [Preferential Procurement Policy
Framework Act] in a proper manner, it was obliged to award the
tender to the applicant. I can see no purpose, therefore, in referring
the matter back to the Tender Board for reconsideration.”
Dit is duidelik dat, waar die meriete dit daartoe leen, die howe administrateurs
se besluite met hul eie sal vervang.
ʼn Verdere voorbeeld hiervan is die saak Clan Court CC v Gauteng Provincial
Liquor Board and Others, 971 waar die hof soos volg beslis :
“The authorities appear to suggest that this Court can, in exceptional
circumstances, grant the licence. All the relevant facts have been
placed before the court. The SAPS have no objection, and in fact
support the application. It is this Court’s finding that the first
respondent and his Board were biased and acted arbitrarily. There is
no indication that it will act differently if this matter is to be referred
back. Having regard to the facts of the case I am satisfied that such
circumstances as are required do exist.”
Vir verdere voorbeelde rakende die remedies vervat in Artikel 8 van PAJA,
sien die hofuitsprake hieronder genoem. 972
(2) Waar verdere vertraging benadeling sal veroorsaak.
In Reynolds Brothers Limited v Chairman, Local Road Transportation Board,
Johannesburg973 het regter Miller die applikant se behoefte rakende
sekerheid en gemoedsrus rakende padvervoerpermitte oorweeg. Die hof het
gelas dat die raad die permitte aan die applikant moes uitreik.
971 2003 JOL 11223 (T) by paragraaf 8
972 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); Mohammed v Minister of Correctional Services and Others 2003(6) SA 169 (SECLD); Silverstar Development Limited v Gauteng Gambling
Board and Others 2004(2) SA 289 (T); 2003 JOL 12033(T); South African Jewish Board of Deputies v Sutherland NO & others 2004(4) SA 368 (W),
Masamba v Chairperson Western Cape Regional Committee, Immigrants Selection Board and Others 2001(12) BCLR 1239 (C); Ruyobeza and Another v
Minister of Home Affairs and Others 2003(5) SA 51 (C); Nontembiso Norah Kate v The Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Welfare,
Eastern Cape (SEC&LD 1907/03; unreported); Gauteng Gambling Board v Silverstar Development Limited and Others 2005(4) SA 67 (SCA); Earthlife
Africa (Cape Town) v Director General:Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Another 2005(3) SA 156 (C); Food Corp (Pty) Limited v
Deputy Director-General:Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism:Branch Marine and Coastal Management and Others 2006(1) ALL SA 277 (C);
Radio Pretoria (Art 21 Maatskappy) v Voorsitter van die Onafhanklike Kommunikasie-Owerheid van SA en 'n ander 2006(1) ALL SA 143 (T); Dunn v
Minister of Defence and Others 2006(2) SA 107 (T).
973 1985(2) SA 790 (A).