This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
This outline must be read in conjunction with the General Introduction handed out in the first week of classes. As will be seen, I will attempt in the first semester to achieve a fairly detailed treatment of almost all the topics that make up the course, leaving the second semester to a detailed consideration of a limited number of the most important cases, as well as some discussion of comparative and global administrative law. In this way, I hope that knowledge of the basic principles will be deepened and integrated, within the framework set out below. I have prescribed a number of pieces of reading with which I expect full familiarity. In addition, there is a list of relevant cases and of recommended reading, all of which will assist you, both this year and in the future. This outline and these lists of readings build on and revise those developed by various lecturers over the past ten years and I wish to record my appreciation of their work. Hugh Corder
1. INTRODUCTION TO ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
The objectives of this topic are to: Define administrative law and its relationship with constitutional law; Provide a historical background to the development of administrative law in South Africa, and the reasons for the inclusion of the right to administrative justice in the Constitution; Provide an overview of the developments in administrative law in South Africa since 1994; and Understand and appreciate the significance of the application of the separation of powers doctrine in the context of administrative law. Prescribed reading Hoexter 2- 12. H Corder „Administrative justice in the final Constitution‟ (1997) 13 South African Journal of Human Rights 28-43.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND DEMOCRACY: THE NEW AND THE OLD This topic aims to: investigate the extent to which the form. define the rule of law and its applicability to South Africa‟s post apartheid administrative law. Johannesburg Consolidated Investment Co v Johannesburg Town Council 1903 TS 111 to 130 Recommended reading Asimow „Administrative law under South Africa‟s final Constitution: the need for an Administrative Justice Act‟(1996) SALJ 613. and provide insights into the various models of administrative law. from 33 to 41.H Corder „Reinventing Administrative Law in South Africa‟ in Chris Finn (Ed) Sunrise or Sunset? Administrative Law for the New Millennium (2000). DM Davis „To defer and then when? Administrative law and constitutional democracy‟ (2006) Acta Juridica 23-40. H Corder „Administrative justice: A cornerstone of South Africa's democracy' 1998 (14) SAJHR 38-59. Prescribed reading D Davis „Administrative justice in a democratic South Africa‟ (1993) Acta Juridica 21-34. 2 .115. at 100 . 2. Sachs and Diamond v Minister of Justice 1934 AD 11. define the concept of judicial deference and its applicability in this field. E Mureinik „Reconsidering review: Participation and accountability‟ (1993) Acta Juridica 35-46. demonstrate how history. content and institutions of administrative law are integral to the establishment and maintenance of a democratic state and the Constitution. traditions and practice of government affect the legal and judicial policy with regard to regulation of the exercise of executive authority and discretion.
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of SA v President of the RSA 2000(2) SA 674 (CC).  – . Recommended reading Hoexter 67-76. De Ville 13 – 34.  – . Relevant Cases President of the RSA v Sarfu 1999 (10) BCLR 1059 (CC) –. Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Others 2004 (4) SA 490 (CC). PAJA AND THE COMMON LAW The objectives of this topic are to demonstrate how the Constitution and the PAJA have affected the common law relating to judicial review in South Africa. 2002) 69. Prescribed reading Hoexter 12 – 14. 2000 (3) BCLR 241 (CC). and explore the procedural implications of PAJA with regard to how to commence an action for judicial review. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CONSTITUTION. 28. 2004 (7) BCLR 687 (CC). Logbro Properties CC v Bedderson NO and others 2003 (2) SA 460 (SCA). I Currie „What difference does the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act make to administrative law‟ (2006) Acta Juridica 325. at . Relevant cases 3 . 3. Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of SA v President of the RSA 2000 (2) SA 674 (CC).Etienne Mureinik „A Bridge to Where? Introducing the Interim Bill of Rights‟ (1994) 10 SAJHR 31-32 and 38-44. 2000 (3) BCLR 241 (CC). DM Davis „Administrative justice: A judicial perspective‟ in H Corder and L van de Vijver (eds) Realising administrative justice (Cape Town: Siber Ink. determine the significance of the common law relating to judicial review in the constitutional era. 110-114.
legislation. Fedsure Life Assurance v Greater Transitional Metropolitan Council 1998 (12) BCLR 1458 (CC)  – . para  and para . President of the RSA v Sarfu 1999 (10) BCLR 1059 (CC)  – . Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of South Africa: In re ex Parte President of the Republic of South Africa and others 2000(2) SA 674 (CC). estoppel and waiver. 2000(3) BCLR 241 (CC) paras  to . Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Others 2004 (4) SA 490 (CC) 2004 (7) BCLR 687 (CC). 4 . paras  – . Prescribed reading Hoexter 12 – 22. Minister of Health and another v New Clicks SA (Pty) Ltd & others 2005 JOL 15636 (CC). 4.  – . pp.Commissioner of Customs and Excise v Container Logistics (Pty) Ltd 1999(3) SA 771 (SCA) at  to . 1997 (6) BCLR 708 (CC) at paras  – . 2006 (1) BCLR 1 (CC). African customary law. chapter 29. the common law. paras  to . the former prerogative powers. at . SASOL Oil (Pty) Ltd v Metcalf NO 2004 (5) SA 161 (W). T Bennett „Administrative Law Controls Over Chiefs‟ Customary Powers of Removal‟ (1993) 110 SALJ 276-291. President of the RSA v Hugo 1997(4) SA 1 (CC). Recommended reading I Currie & J de Waal The Bill of Rights Handbook (Juta: 2005). 2004(7) BCLR 687.  – 438]. SOURCES OF ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY The aim of this topic is to examine the following sources of administrative and public authority: the Constitution (and in particular the empowerment of the executive). Relevant cases Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Others 2004(4) SA 490 (CC). 644 – 650. Zondi v MEC for Traditional & Local Govt Affairs 2005 (3) SA 589 (CC)  – 103]. 2006 (2) SA 311 (CC).
Recommended reading DM Davis “‟Public Power‟: Do Administrative Lawyers really Care?‟ in Corder and Maluwa (eds) Administrative Justice in Southern Africa (1997) at 43-52. THE PUBLIC/PRIVATE DIVIDE Administrative law is said to apply where „public power is exercised or a public function is discharged‟. Alfred C Aman „Administrative Law in a New Century‟ in M. 5.President of the RSA v SARFU 2000(1) SA 1 (CC). 1999 (10) BCLR 1059 (CC) at  – . Eastern Metropolitan Substructure v Peter Klein Investments (Pty) Ltd 2001 (4) SA 661 (W). we explore the following issues: The criteria to be used to determine „publicness‟. especially given the developments of the past thirty years.Taggart (ed) The Province of Administrative Law (1997) at 90-117. Durban City Council v Glenore Supermarket and Café 1981 (1) SA 470 (D). Eastern Cape Provincial Government v Contractprops 25 (Pty) Ltd 2001 (4) SA 142 (SCA). The dividing line between public power and private power is not a bright one. City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v RPM Bricks (Pty) Ltd  SCA 28 (RSA) South African Co-operative Citrus Exchange Ltd v Director-General Trade and Industry and Another 1997 (3) SA 236 (SCA). Whether a private body can wield „public power‟ or fulfil a „public function‟ and Whether a public authority can in certain circumstances engage in „private‟ activities Prescribed reading Alfred Cockrell “Can you Paradigm? – Another Perspective on the Public Law/Private Law Divide” 1993 Acta Juridica 227-247. 5 . Greys Marine Hout Bay (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Public Works and Others 2005 (6) SA 313 -327 (SCA). in a rapidly „globalising‟ world. In this section.
176-83. 7. in public sector employment C Hoexter „Contracts in Administrative Law: Life after formalism?‟ (2004) 121 SALJ 595. Prescribed reading Hoexter 147-59. STATE LIABILITY: ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AND DELICT The objective is to: 6 . 397-404. Premier of the Free State Provincial Government and Others v Firechem Free State (Pty) Ltd 2000 (4) SA 413 (SCA). especially at 21G-22B.6. 288-90. Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan Council v Eskom 2001 (1) SA 866 (SCA). Recommended reading D M Pretorius „The defence of the realm: Contract and natural justice' (2002) 119 SALJ 374. 193-99. R Stacey „Administrative Law relationships‟ (2008) SALJ 595-622. Knop v Johannesburg City Council 1995 (2) SA 1 (A). Department van Handel en Nywerheid 1992 (4) SA 1 (A).618. Olitziki Property Holdings v State Tender Board 2001 (8) BCLR 779 (SCA). Dilokong Chrome Mines (Edms) Bpk v Direkteur-Generaal. STATE LIABILITY: ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AND CONTRACT The objective is to consider the application of contractual remedies to administrative action. Relevant cases Transnet Ltd and Others v. Chirwa  2 BLLR 97 (CC)  –  Government of the Province of the Eastern Cape v Frontier Safaries (Pty) Ltd 1998 (2) SA 19 (SCA).
103-110. Minister of Police v Rabie 1986 (1) SA 117(A). Minister of Safety and Security v Hamilton 2004 (2) SA 216 (SCA). and explore how the Constitution has affected the traditional justifications for judicial review. especially at 21G-22B. INTRODUCTION TO JUDICIAL REVIEW The objective here is to: compare and contrast review and appeal. Knop v Johannesburg City Council 1995 (2) SA 1 (A). critically examine the theoretical justifications for judicial review including the doctrines of legality and ultra vires. 7 . Eastern Cape 2007 (3) SA 121 (CC). and in particular consider the application of delictual remedies to administrative action.highlight the relevance of private remedies to redressing abuses of public power. Relevant cases Dendy v University of the Witwatersrand and others 2005 (5) SA 357 (W). Premier. C Hoexter „The Future of Judicial Review in South African Administrative Law‟ (2000) 117 SALJ 484-519. Dilokong Chrome Mines (Edms) Bpk v Direkteur-Generaal. Department van Handel en Nywerheid 1992 (4) SA 1 (A). D Dyzenhaus „The Pasts and Future of the Rule of Law in South Africa‟ (2007) 4 SALJ 734-761. Prescribed reading Hoexter 466-71. Prescribed reading Hoexter 55-69. Western Cape v Faircape Property Developers (Pty) Ltd 2003 (6) SA 13 (SCA). Recommended reading De Ville 353-363 8. Steenkamp NO v Provincial Tender Board.
NON-JUDICIAL FORMS OF REGULATION OVER THE EXERCISE OF ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY AND DISCRETION The objective here is to: identify and discuss the various forms of controlling or improving the exercise of administrative authority (other than ordinary courts) including. C Forsyth 'Of fig leaves and fairy tales: The ultra vires doctrine. D Dyzenhaus 'Law as justification' (1998) 14 SAJHR 11. SCA decision at  1 All SA 531 (SCA) and subsequent decision of the Cape High Court at  1 All SA 277 (C) (2006 (2) SA 199 (C).Relevant cases Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Others 2004 (4) SA 490 (CC). President of the RSA v Sarfu 1999 (10) BCLR 1059 (CC) at . Recommended reading De Ville 1. President of the RSA v Hugo 1997 (6) BCLR 708 (CC) at  – . Foodcorp (Pty) Ltd v Deputy Director General: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism: Branch Marine and Coastal Management and others . administrative appeals and tribunals. 8 . Fedsure Life Assurance v Greater Transitional Metropolitan Council 1998 (12) BCLR 1458 (CC) at  – . 2006 (2) SA 311 (CC) at  – .34. 9. P Craig 'Ultra vires and the foundations of judicial review' (1998) Cambridge Law Journal 63. Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of SA v President of the RSA 2000 (3) BCLR 241 (CC) at  – . Minister of Health and another v New Clicks SA (Pty) Ltd & others. 2004 (7) BCLR 687 (CC) at  . D Dyzenhaus 'Reuniting the brain: The democratic basis of judicial review' Public Law Review (1998) 98. A Breitenbach „The justifications for judicial review‟ (1992) 8 SAJHR 512535. the sovereignty of parliament and judicial review' (1996) Cambridge Law Journal 122.
Mittalsteel South Africa Ltd (formerly Iscor Ltd) v Hlatshwayo 2007 (1) SA 66 (SCA). the right to live: Access to information and socio-economic justice (ODAC: 2002) 3. S Jagwanth 'The right to information as a leverage right' in R Calland and A Tilley (eds) The right to know. Recommended reading Currie and Klaaren The Promotion of Access to Information Act Commentary (2002) (on short loan). Ombudsman institutions. demonstrate how the Constitution and PAJA have affected the meaning of administrative action.DEFINITION OF REVIEWABLE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION (1) The objectives of this topic are to define administrative action. 10. Prescribed reading Section 1 of PAJA Hoexter. Chapter 4 C Hoexter „“Administrative action” in the courts‟ (2006) Acta Juridica 303. public participation procedures. controls by the legislature. Prescribed reading Hoexter 63-98. and Others 2008 (1) SA 438 (SCA). Fedsure Life Assurance v Greater Transitional Metropolitan Council 1999 (1) SA 374 (CC) 1998 (12) BCLR 1458 (CC). and access to information. 9 . Department of Works. Relevant cases Tetra Mobile Radio (Pty) Ltd v MEC. and determine the extent to which the PAJA incorporates non-judicial procedures and mechanisms for controlling administrative power and identify areas for further reform in South Africa.
Sidumo & Another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd and Others 2008 (2) SA 24 (CC)  – . ex parte Datafin plc  QB 815 (CA). Buffalo City Municipality v Willie Gaus and another 2005 (4) SA 498 (SCA). Directory Cost Cutters v Minister of Posts. St Andrew's College 1991 (4) SA 458 (E). Administrator. Telecommunications and Broadcasting 1996 (3) SA 800 (T). 11. 10 . Administrator. Johannesburg Stock Exchange and another v Witwatersrand Nigel Ltd and another 1988 (3) SA 132 (A).  – .Relevant cases President of the RSA v Sarfu 2000(1) SA 1 (CC) at para 1999 (10) BCLR 1059 (CC)  – . Mustapha v Receiver of Revenue 1958 (3) SA 343 at 347. Govt of the Self-Governing Territory of Kwa-Zulu v Mahlangu1994 (1) SA 626 (T). 2000 (3) BCLR 241 (CC). Recommended Reading Currie and Klaaren 34 – 86. Transvaal v Zenzile 1991 (1) SA 21 (AD). Korf v Health Professions Council of South Africa 2000 (1) SA 1171 (T). Housing and Agriculture 1993 (1) SA 405 (T). Naran v Head of Department of Local Government. Embling v Headmaster. DEFINITION OF REVIEWABLE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION (II) The objectives of this topic are to identify conduct which qualifies as administrative action. Natal v Sibiya 1992 (4) SA 532 (A). at . Baloro v University of Bophuthatswana 1995 (4) SA 197 (B).  –  Transnet Limited v Chirwa  2 BCLR 97 (CC)  – . De Ville 35 – 58. R v Panel on Take-Overs and Mergers. Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of SA v President of the RSA 2000(2) SA 674 (CC). Dawnlaan Beleggings (Edms) v Johannesaburg Stock Exchange 1983 (3) SA 344 (W).
Chirwa v Transnet Ltd 2008 (4) SA 367 (CC). Gcaba v Minister for Safety and Security 2010 (1) SA 238 (CC).  – . Cape Metropolitan Council v Metro Inspection Services (Western Cape) CC and Others 2001 (3) SA 1013 (SCA). Grey’s Marine Hout Bay (Pty) Ltd and others v Minister of Public Works and others 2005 (6) SA 313 (SCA)  – . Sidumo v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd 2008 (2) SA 24 (CC).identify circumstances under which acts or omissions of private actors may qualify as administrative action and examine in particular administrative law. De Ville 35 – 58. Eastern Cape (2008) 29 ILJ 2129 (SCA). Prescribed reading Section 1 of PAJA. Relevant cases Minister of Health and another v New Clicks SA (Pty) Ltd & others 2005 JOL 15636 (CC). Transnet Ltd v Goodman Brothers 2001 (1) SA 853 (SCA) at  – . the interface between labour law and 11 . Theron v Ring van Wellington van die Sendingkerk in SA 1976 (2) 1 (A). 2006 (2) SA 311 (CC). Johannesburg Stock Exchange and another v Witwatersrand Nigel Ltd and another 1988 (3) SA 132 (A). Halton Cheadle „Deconstructing Chirwa v Transnet‟ (2009) 30 ILJ 741-756.  – . Cronje v United Cricket Board of South Africa 2001 (4) SA 1361 (T). Lunt v UCT 1989 (2) SA 438 (C). Tirfu Raiders Rugby Club v SA Rugby Union and others  2 All SA 549 (C). 2006 (1) BCLR 1 (CC)  – . Recommended reading Currie and Klaaren 34 – 86. Pennington v Friedgood 2002 (3) BCLR 298 (C). C Hoexter „Clearing the Intersection? Administrative Law and Labour Law in the Constitutional Court‟ (2008) 1 CCR 209-234. Makimba v MEC for Education.
the following topics will be covered in the second semester: reason-giving. 12 . lawfulness. in broad outline. procedural fairness. In addition. the three „groups‟ of review grounds. and reasonableness. GROUNDS OF REVIEW We will consider. procedure for judicial review. This will form the platform for the detailed consideration of a limited number of cases in the second semester.12. remedies. comparative administrative justice and global administrative law.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.