Department of Public Law

Permanent URI for this community

https://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/132

Browse

Browsing Department of Public Law by Subject "Administrative law -- South Africa"

Now showing 1 - 10 of 10
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The absence of a system of internal controls in South African Administrative Law, in light of Section 7(2) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000
    (Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2020-12) Heydenrych, Ernst; Quinot, Geo; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Law. Dept. of Public Law.
    ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Section 33 of the Constitution envisions a lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair manner of obtaining administrative justice. Coupled with the project of Transformative Constitutionalism, which seeks to create a culture of justification, the hope was that South Africa’s public administration would become more open, accountable and efficient. The primary mechanism through which the above occurs, is judicial review. However, its time-consuming and costly nature means that a large portion of South African society cannot gain access to the court system. Furthermore, courts have often held that the public administration is better suited to deal with certain matters, as courts may lack the necessary expertise to address a particular administrative matter adequately. Thus, there is a need to find alternative methods for holding the public administration accountable. One such method, is by way of the exhaustion of internal remedies. Section 7(2)(a) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 holds that an applicant for judicial review must first exhaust any and all available internal remedies before approaching a review court. Should the applicant fail to do so, the court is obliged to direct said applicant to first exhaust the available internal remedies (section 7(2)(b)), unless the court grants an exemption (section 7(2)(c)). However, members of the public have no general right to an internal remedy, nor is there a duty on the state to provide an aggrieved party with one. South African administrative law currently lacks a uniform system of internal controls (remedies), and whether or not an aggrieved party will have an internal remedy to exhaust, will depend on the context of each case. Accordingly, this thesis argues in favour of the creation and implementation of a uniform system of internal controls by the state, by relying on four main points: (a) section 33 of the Constitution; (b) the project of Transformative Constitutionalism; (c) the impact of poverty on the attainment of administrative justice; and (d) the duty to exhaust domestic remedies under international law. Should the above argument be accepted, then focus must shift to the content and scope of an effective internal remedy. By way of analysis of various statutory frameworks containing existing internal remedies, nine criteria are identified, which should inform the decision-making of the state when formulating the content and scope of an effective internal remedy.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    An administrative law perspective on “bad building” evictions in the Johannesburg inner city
    (ESR Review (Economic and Social Rights in South Africa), 2007-05) Quinot, G.
    The recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal in Rand Properties provides an opportunity to assess the use of administrative law arguments in advancing the realisation of socio-economic rights. The judgment itself is disappointing in this respect by failing to grapple effectively with the potentially constructive interaction between section 33 of the Constitution and the various socio-economic rights provisions.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    At the intersection between expropriation law and administrative law : two critical views on the Constitutional Court's Arun judgment
    (Faculty of Law, North-West University, 2016-08) Marais, E. J.; Maree, P. J. H.; Public Law
    Abstract of article; "In Arun the Constitutional Court held that section 28 of the Land Use Planning Ordinance (LUPO) vests all land indicated as public roads on a development plan in the local authority upon approval of such a plan. This includes land that is in excess of the normal need of the development. The appellant must hence be compensated for the "expropriation" of such excess land if the provision is to comply with section 25(2) of the Constitution. This ruling is problematic for both expropriation law and administrative law. In terms of section 25(2) four objections may be raised against the Arun decision. Firstly, it disregards the function of the public interest requirement for expropriation, as understood in view of the law-of-general-application requirement (which, in turn, is informed by the legality principle). The state cannot expropriate property for purposes that are ultra vires (or ulterior to) the authorising legislation. Yet the Arun court seems to allow just this by permitting the local authority to acquire land unrelated to the normal need of the development against payment of compensation instead of setting the attempted expropriation aside. The judgment, secondly, ignores the role of compensation under section 25(2). Merely paying compensation to an affected party cannot turn an invalid expropriation into a valid one, since compensation is merely the result of a valid expropriation and not a justification for it. Thirdly, it makes the distinction between deprivation and expropriation pivot on the effect of the property limitation, which is unable to properly distinguish between these two forms of limitation in all instances. Finally, Moseneke DCJ's ruling seems to afford an election to litigants who are affected by materially defective expropriations to choose whether to accept the expropriation and claim compensation or to have it reviewed and set aside under PAJA. This election, if it indeed exists, subverts the principles of expropriation law and may have negative repercussions for both expropriation law and administrative law, especially in view of the single-system-of-law principle. From an administrative law perspective the authors identify four considerations that could assist courts in determining whether administrative law should be considered, if not applied, in a given case. The first is the internal coherency of the law in view of the subsidiarity principles. The subsidiarity principles provide guidelines for courts to decide cases where two fundamental rights might be applicable. A principled approach is necessary in this context to ensure that the law operates as a single system and displays the positive characteristics of such a system. The fact that Moseneke DCJ preferred to award compensation to Arun instead of reviewing the expropriation under PAJA runs contrary to these principles and seems to result in an outcome which endorses – instead of prevents – administrative injustice. Secondly, the Constitutional Court's refusal to follow PAJA by reason of its being onerous on the appellant contradicts earlier case law where the Court held that time-periods under the Act cannot be circumvented by reason of their being burdensome. The rationale behind these time-periods is integral to securing administrative justice, since time-periods are not merely formalistic technicalities. Thirdly, the authors argue that a green-light approach to internal remedies could have resulted in the broadening of the interpretative context and recognition of the legitimate role of the public administration in the state. Finally, deference as understood by Dyzenhaus also exemplifies why administrative law should not be ignored in cases which concern the exercise of public power. According to Dyzenhaus, deference requires courts to actively participate in the justification of administrative decisions by asking whether the administration's "reasoning did in fact and also could in principle justify the conclusion reached".
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Grounds for review of administrative action : the interaction between the constitution, the act and the common law
    (Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2000-12) Hopkins, Elana; Van der Walt, Andre; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Law. Dept. of Public Law.
    ENGLISH ABSTRACT: South African administrative law has undergone drastic changes since the inception of the interim Constitution, which elevated 'administrative justice' to a constitutionally entrenched fundamental right in section 24. Although the successor of this section, the 'must administrative action' clause in section 33 FC, did not enter into force on 5 February 1996 with the rest of the Constitution, it required more changes to administrative law in the form of legislation, when read together with item 23 Schedule 6 FC. The two most significant factors that brought about change were the passage of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 in terms of section 33 FC read with item 23 Schedule 6, and the ruling of the Constitutional Court in the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers case. This study shows that in order to give effect to the requirements of the Constitution, the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act and the ruling of the Constitutional Court, administrative law must be reorganised. When this happens, section 33 FC, which gives force to the common law that informs administrative law, becomes the starting point in administrative law matters. Although the Act exists under the Constitution and parallel to the common law, Parliament foresees that the Act and the common law will in time become one system of law. It further provides for the direct application of the Constitution by those who cannot find a remedy in the Act. The study further shows that, as not all the common law constitutional principles that previously provided the common law grounds for review of administrative action have been taken up by the Constitution, the possibility exists that some of the common law grounds do not continue to be relevant to the review of administrative action. The Act, which articulates the right to 'just administrative action' as viewed by government, contains most of the common law grounds for review. It is therefore argued that, after the Act has entered into force, the continued relevance of those that have been omitted from the Act, needs to be determined before they can be used through the direct application of section 33 FC. To test for relevance, the requirements in section 33(1) Fe, 'lawfulness', reasonableness' and 'procedural fairness', are therefore interpreted in the study in order to determine which statutory grounds relate to each and which common law grounds have been omitted from the Act. The conclusion reached is that grounds available for the review of administrative action consist of the statutory grounds for review together with the omitted common law grounds that continue to be relevant to the judicial review of administrative action.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Investigating an alternative administrative-law system in South Africa
    (Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2013-12) Maree, Petrus Jacobus Hermanus; Quinot, Geo; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Law. Dept. of Public Law.
    ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This dissertation considers the question whether there are viable alternatives to the conceptual framework within which the South African administrative-law system operates, given that the administration now functions under new constitutional demands and new approaches to administrative engagement. The intention is not to proffer concrete recommendations for such a system, but only to propose an approach by means of which questions concerning the legal regulation of the administration and administrative function may be addressed. The dissertation introduces the concept of the contextualised administrative-law system. This concept emphasises the legal relationship between the public administration and the judiciary, but is not limited to this relationship. The administrative-law system does not operate in a vacuum, though, and is informed by the conceptual framework within which the system operates. The system is also a function of its geo-political and socio-economic context. The historical development of the doctrine of separation of powers, as one aspect of the conceptual framework, is traced. Thereby the normative, dynamic and flexible nature of the doctrine is established. On this basis, the potential and value of a fourth branch, the administration, within the separation-of-powers doctrine is assessed. By implication, the administrative function would constitute a fourth, distinct function in addition to the legislative, executive and judicial functions. The concept of the administrative-law system is consequently applied to the South African context. Firstly, the development of the South African system is outlined and, secondly, the administrative-law relationship is analysed. This discussion establishes that the system is characterised by an embryonic administrative law, the equating of administrative law and judicial review, an emphasis on the rule-of-law or “red-light” approach to administrative regulation, a rhetoric of deference, and the supremacy of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. Therefore, the system must be informed by the Constitution and, arguably, by Karl Klare’s project of transformative constitutionalism and Etienne Mureinik’s “culture of justification”. The content of the separation of powers is also investigated by means of an historical analysis of the considerations that rationalise the existence of an independent administrative jurisdiction in France. This entails an exposition of the Conseil d’État’s structure, organisation and dual function. Principles that describe the French system, other than the pure separation of powers, are discussed, namely, the duality of jurisdiction, the separation of administrative and judicial authorities, the separation of the administrative jurisdiction and active administration, the maxim “to judge the administration is still administering”, and the hybrid nature of administrative litigation. The legal regulation of public contracts can be regarded as a doctrinal perspective of the administrative-law system. The public contract is discussed as one form of administration, due to its conceptual ambiguity as a legal instrument on the boundary between public and private law and due to the administration’s increasing contractual activity. To an extent the contrat administratif of French law indicates that particular legal rules are an extension of the broader principles, considerations and institutional structures discussed in the preceding sections. This dissertation introduces an approach that emphasises the relationship between the administration and the judiciary as well as the conceptual framework within which the administrative-law system operates. Through the application of this approach to the South African context and to public contracting the key concepts and debates underlying an appropriate administrative-law system in South Africa are identified and investigated. This constitutes a platform for the development of a particular administrative-law system and an exposition of viable alternatives to the conceptual framework within which the system operates.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Narrowing the band : reasonableness review in administrative justice and socio-economic rights jurisprudence in South Africa
    (Juta Law, 2011) Quinot, G.; Liebenberg, Sandra
    This contribution explores the standard of reasonableness review applied in both administrative justice and socio-economic rights jurisprudence in South Africa. The first part traces the development of reasonableness as a standard of review in administrative law, and the significant shift towards a more substantive conception of review. The implications of this shift for cases involving review of administrative action impacting on socio-economic rights (what we term, "overlap cases") are examined. The second part of the contribution examines reasonableness review in socio-economic rights cases where the cause of action is not formulated in terms of administrative law (what we term, "non-overlap cases"). This typically concerns cases where it is alleged that the legislature or executive branches of government have failed to fulfil the obligations imposed by socio-economic rights. In this section we highlight the failure of existing constitutional jurisprudence on socio-economic rights to develop a substantive account of the normative purposes and values promoted by these rights. We argue that it remains possible for such an account to be developed within the existing framework of reasonableness review applied to positive socio-economic rights claims. The paper concludes with an argument in favour of the development of a single model of reasonableness review across socio-economic rights and administrative justice cases. While the reasonableness standards under the different sections overlap, they should not result in duplication, but fulfil different functions in the review. Taken together, reasonableness offers a model of review of socio-economic rights that promotes a number of key constitutional objectives. These include transparency, the justification of all forms of public action, proper consideration of the factual and normative context, and the development of the substantive dimensions of the socio-economic rights in the Constitution.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Reconsidering the relationship between property and regulation: a systemic constitutional approach
    (Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2015-12) van der Sijde, Elsabe; Van der Walt, A. J.; Quinot, Geo; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Law. Department of Public Law
    ENGLISH ABSTRACT :This dissertation considers whether the approach to the regulation of property in the constitutional context is compatible with either one of the major theoretical approaches in private law, namely that ownership is fundamentally absolute or alternatively that regulatory limitations are inherent to ownership. It finds that the inherent/external debate is of limited value in South Africa’s constitutional context because there has been a shift toward a stronger emphasis on reconciling individual entitlements with other (constitutional) interests. In response to the inadequacy of the existing (private law) approaches, this dissertation proposes a systemic constitutional approach. In terms of this approach, property is regarded as part of an inherently regulated constitutional legal system. Disputes regarding the protection of entitlements must be addressed with reference to the objectives of the system as a whole and regulation is understood as a mechanism through which constitutional values are promoted. Thus, regulation of the use of property does not erode the institution of private property, because the system provides for constitutional or statutory control over the regulatory process. In this context there is an overlap between sections 25 and 33 of the Constitution, since the secondary regulatory function can be fulfilled by the principles of either constitutional property law or administrative law, when the use of property is regulated through administrative action. The complicating factor is that not all regulatory measures are also administrative actions. The use of property can also be regulated directly through common law or legislation, or through acts of the executive or judiciary. In terms of the systemic constitutional approach, direct application of section 25 should be reserved for cases of direct statutory or common law deprivation. Where more than one regulatory framework is potentially applicable, the subsidiarity principles should identify the appropriate framework, to avoid the creation of parallel systems of law. Ultimately, reconsideration of the relationship between property and regulation is part of an ongoing constitutional conversation which can only take place when we explicitly engage with questions regarding the role, function and status of property and regulation in the constitutional legal system.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Die reg se oenskynlike onvermoe om korrupsie in staatskontraktering in Suid-Afrika hok te slaan
    (LitNet, 2013) Quinot, G.
    Ten spyte van ’n aansienlike aantal afdwingbare regsreëls wat staatsverkryging in Suid-Afrika reguleer, word hierdie aspek van staatsadministrasie gekenmerk deur hoë vlakke van ongerymdhede. Veral korrupsie blyk hoogty te vier as dit kom by staatskontrakte. Die vraag ontstaan dus hoekom die toepaslike reg oënskynlik nie daarin slaag om korrupsie in staatskontraktering effektief teen te werk nie. Die doel met hierdie artikel is om te fokus op die regsreëls wat spesifiek gemik is daarop om korrupsie in staatskontraktering te beveg en deur ’n ontleding van daardie reëls probleme te identifiseer wat sodanige oogmerk ondermyn. Vyf hoofprobleme in die regulering van staatsverkryging word geïdentifiseer wat bepaald die stryd teen korrupsie ondermyn, te wete die gefragmenteerde aard van die regulatoriese raamwerk, die steun op verkrygingsbeleid as die voertuig vir individuele verkrygingsreëls, die desentralisering van beide die verkrygingsfunksie en die skep van verkrygingsreëls, die inkonsekwente toepassing van gemeenregtelike reëls deur howe in verkrygingsdispute en die onsamehangende stelsel van remedies van toepassing op verkrygingstransaksies. Drie stappe word gevolglik voorgestel wat hierdie probleme kan help aanspreek. Dit is die sentralisering en konsolidering van die regulatoriese raamwerk, die skep van ’n sterk, sentrale oorsigstruktuur, en ’n herbesinning van die howe se rol in die regulering van staatsverkryging.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Substantive reasoning in administrative-law adjudication
    (Constitutional Court Review, 2010) Quinot, G.
    One of the main characteristics of constitutional transformation in South Africa is what Etienne Mureinik calls the shift towards a culture of justification in which 'every exercise of power is expected to be justified'.1 He argues that within such a culture, constitutional rights 'are standards of justification - standards against which to measure the justification of the decisions challenged under them'.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Worse than losing a government tender : winning it
    (Juta Law, 2008) Quinot, G.
    In Steenkamp NO v Provincial Tender Board, Eastern Cape 2007 3 SA 121 (CC) the Constitutional Court held that an organ of state was not liable in delict for a successful tenderer's out-of-pocket losses following the setting aside of the tender because of a bona fide error on the part of that organ of state in the tender process. The Court ruled that the organ of state's negligent but bona fide conduct in the public tender process was not wrongful since it owed no legal duty to tenderers, whether successful or unsuccessful, to avoid such losses and that there were no public policy considerations that justified the recognition of such a duty. From a public procurement perspective, this judgment is unfortunate. Moseneke DCJ's majority judgment is based on a number of highly contestable assumptions and holds implications for public procurement that may largely undermine the very public policy considerations upon which it is based. The dissenting minority judgment of Langa CJ and O'Regan J is to be preferred, because it is not only much more sensitive to the general realities of public procurement, but specifically the realities of South African public procurement. However, the problem raised by the Steenkamp matter, judged from a public procurement perspective, is not one of delictual liability but rather the hitherto fairly unsophisticated approach to remedies following the judicial review of public tender decisions in South Africa. In order to overcome the problems illustrated by the Steenkamp case, we should focus our attention on the development of appropriate judicial review remedies within the public procurement context. The recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal in Millennium Waste Management v Chairperson Tender Board 2007 JOL 21170 (SCA) provides a solid point of departure for such a development.