audi alteram partem presentation
TRANSCRIPT
PRESENTATION:PRESENTATION:
FREE- STATE GOVERNMENTFREE- STATE GOVERNMENT
SENIOR MANAGEMENT CONFERENCESENIOR MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
VENUE:VENUE: BLOEMFONTEIN (PRESIDENT HOTEL)BLOEMFONTEIN (PRESIDENT HOTEL)
DATE:DATE:30 & 31 AUGUST 200830 & 31 AUGUST 2008
PRESENTER: ADV. VUYO LUNGILE PEACHPRESENTER: ADV. VUYO LUNGILE PEACH
THE APPLICATION OF THE THE APPLICATION OF THE AUDI-ALTERAM PARTEMAUDI-ALTERAM PARTEM RULE RULE
TO EXECUTIVE DECISIONS TO EXECUTIVE DECISIONS
ADV. VUYO LUNGILE PEACHADV. VUYO LUNGILE PEACH
B.Iuris, LLB, LLM(Adm Law), Dip. Human Rights Law, Adv. Cert in B.Iuris, LLB, LLM(Adm Law), Dip. Human Rights Law, Adv. Cert in Labour Law, Labour Law Cert.Labour Law, Labour Law Cert.
3
Listening fairly to both sides has aptly Listening fairly to both sides has aptly been been
described as 'a duty lying upon everyone described as 'a duty lying upon everyone who who
decides anything (Lord Loveburn LC in decides anything (Lord Loveburn LC in Board of Board of
Education v Rice [1911] AC 179, 182')Education v Rice [1911] AC 179, 182')
4
The application of The application of audi alteram partemaudi alteram partem rule rule to executive decisionsto executive decisions
1.1. BackgroundBackground
This presentation focuses on the This presentation focuses on the application ofapplication of
audi alteram partem rule to executiveaudi alteram partem rule to executivedecisions:decisions:
Audi alteram partem rule applicationAudi alteram partem rule application Executive decisionsExecutive decisions ConsequencesConsequences
5
The application of The application of audi alteram partemaudi alteram partem rule rule to executive decisionsto executive decisions
The structure of government under the The structure of government under the 1996 Constitution1996 Constitution
Legislative authorityLegislative authority Executive authorityExecutive authority Judicial authorityJudicial authority
The constitution distinguishes legislative; The constitution distinguishes legislative; executive and judicial authority and executive and judicial authority and explicitly delineates separate manifestation explicitly delineates separate manifestation of the State of the State powerpower11 (De Waal and Currie, the new (De Waal and Currie, the new constitutional and administrative law, vol 1, 130)constitutional and administrative law, vol 1, 130)
6
DEFINITION OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITYDEFINITION OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY
The term “executive” refers to political appointees The term “executive” refers to political appointees who who
collectively head the government, whether at the collectively head the government, whether at the National, Provincial or Local Level.National, Provincial or Local Level.² ² (De Waal and (De Waal and
Currie, volCurrie, vol1, 228)1, 228)
7
In cases where administrative action In cases where administrative action materially materially
and adversely affects the rights of the and adversely affects the rights of the public, public,
an administrator, in order to give effect to an administrator, in order to give effect to the the
right to procedurally fair administration, right to procedurally fair administration, must must
decide whether:decide whether:
8
(a) to hold a public inquiry in terms of subsection (a) to hold a public inquiry in terms of subsection (2)(Section 4(c ) of Promotion of Administrative (2)(Section 4(c ) of Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000) if an Administrator decides to Justice Act 3 of 2000) if an Administrator decides to follow a notice and comment procedure, the follow a notice and comment procedure, the Administrator must -Administrator must -
(b) take appropriate steps to communicate the (b) take appropriate steps to communicate the administrative action to those likely to be materially administrative action to those likely to be materially and adversely affected by it and call for comment and adversely affected by it and call for comment from them and -from them and -
(c ) Consider any comments received (Section 3 (a) (c ) Consider any comments received (Section 3 (a) and and (b) of Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of (b) of Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000)2000)
9
There are limits to the power of the executive to makeThere are limits to the power of the executive to makepolicy.policy.
Executive authority is exercised at National, ProvincialExecutive authority is exercised at National, Provincialand Local Level of government.and Local Level of government.
National LevelNational Level
Section 85 (1) of the Constitution puts the executive Section 85 (1) of the Constitution puts the executive authority at National Level is vested in the President. authority at National Level is vested in the President. The President is the head of the cabinet (Section 91 (1) The President is the head of the cabinet (Section 91 (1) of the constitution of the Republic of South Africa) and of the constitution of the Republic of South Africa) and exercises the national executive authority together exercises the national executive authority together
with with other members of the cabinet.other members of the cabinet.
10
Provincial LevelProvincial Level
Executive authority of a province is vested in the Executive authority of a province is vested in the Premier Premier
of the province. The Premier exercises the provincial of the province. The Premier exercises the provincial executive authority together with other Members of executive authority together with other Members of
the the Executive Council (Section 125 (1) of the constitution Executive Council (Section 125 (1) of the constitution
of of the Republic.the Republic.
Local LevelLocal Level
The executive authority is vested in its Municipal The executive authority is vested in its Municipal Council.Council.
11
Difference between State and GovernmentDifference between State and Government
Government:Government: Politically constituted and Politically constituted and temporary.temporary.
State:State: More neutral and permanent.More neutral and permanent.
12
AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM RULEAUDI ALTERAM PARTEM RULE
The rules of natural justice, more particularly the The rules of natural justice, more particularly the audi alteram partem rule, were initially regarded audi alteram partem rule, were initially regarded to be applicable only in those cases where it to be applicable only in those cases where it could be said that administrative action in could be said that administrative action in question violated the rights of the individual. question violated the rights of the individual.
In this respect, so the argument goes, In this respect, so the argument goes, commissions of inquiry do not violate any commissions of inquiry do not violate any individual rights. However, in S v Mulderindividual rights. However, in S v Mulder3 3 (1980 1 (1980 1
SA 113 (T) 121F-121G)SA 113 (T) 121F-121G) the court agreed that the the court agreed that the recommendations of a commission of inquiry may recommendations of a commission of inquiry may in “ ʼn los sin“ (“in a loose sense”) have an in “ ʼn los sin“ (“in a loose sense”) have an adverse effect on citizens.adverse effect on citizens.
14
In 1989, in the landmark decision of Administrator In 1989, in the landmark decision of Administrator Transvaal v Traub,Transvaal v Traub,44 (1989 4 SA 731 (A) 762 B-C)(1989 4 SA 731 (A) 762 B-C) the the appellate division incorporated into South African law appellate division incorporated into South African law the concept of legitimate expectation. The concept the concept of legitimate expectation. The concept means that, under certain circumstances, a person means that, under certain circumstances, a person may insist on the application of the may insist on the application of the audi alteram audi alteram partempartem rule, even though the administrative action in rule, even though the administrative action in question does not violate any of his or her rights.question does not violate any of his or her rights.
Whether such a legitimate expectation may under Whether such a legitimate expectation may under appropriate circumstances be ascribed to an appropriate circumstances be ascribed to an executive authority when taking decisions affecting executive authority when taking decisions affecting the public, it is not clear and have not been decided the public, it is not clear and have not been decided yet by South African Court. yet by South African Court.
15
The rules of natural justice are rules of procedure. The rules of natural justice are rules of procedure. In this regard, section 24 of the 1993 In this regard, section 24 of the 1993 Constitution of the Republic of South AfricaConstitution of the Republic of South Africa55 (Act (Act
200 of 1993)200 of 1993)and section 33 of the 1996 Constitution and section 33 of the 1996 Constitution of the Republic of South of the Republic of South AfricaAfrica8 8 (Act 108 of 1996(Act 108 of 1996)) both provide that every person has a both provide that every person has a fundamental right to administrative action that is fundamental right to administrative action that is procedurally fair.procedurally fair.
16
The term administrative action is defined in The term administrative action is defined in section 1 ofsection 1 of
the recently enacted Promotion of Administrative the recently enacted Promotion of Administrative JusticeJustice
ActAct6 6 (Act 3 of 2000)(Act 3 of 2000). The influence of these . The influence of these provisions onprovisions on
the common law position pertaining to the the common law position pertaining to the functioning of functioning of
executive decisions is not clear and has up to now executive decisions is not clear and has up to now not not
been subjected to judicial scrutiny.been subjected to judicial scrutiny.
17
The aim of this presentation is therefore to The aim of this presentation is therefore to address the uncertainty pertaining to the address the uncertainty pertaining to the application of the rules of natural justice to application of the rules of natural justice to executive decisions. executive decisions.
The question to be addressed can be formulated The question to be addressed can be formulated as follows: To what extent and on what grounds as follows: To what extent and on what grounds can the can the audi alteram partemaudi alteram partem rule be made rule be made applicable to executive decisions.applicable to executive decisions.
18
1.1. POSITION BEFORE 1994POSITION BEFORE 1994
1.11.1 NATURAL JUSTICENATURAL JUSTICE
1.1.11.1.1 GENERAL APPLICATION OF THE AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM RULEGENERAL APPLICATION OF THE AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM RULE
If the rights of an individual have been violated by If the rights of an individual have been violated by the actions of the government, a public body or the actions of the government, a public body or certain domestic tribunals or associations, such an certain domestic tribunals or associations, such an individual may claim, depending on the individual may claim, depending on the circumstances of the particular case, that there has circumstances of the particular case, that there has been a breach of the rules of natural justicebeen a breach of the rules of natural justice77 (Graig (Graig
Administrative Law 253)Administrative Law 253). The content of these can be . The content of these can be summarized in the maxim summarized in the maxim audi alteram partem ruleaudi alteram partem rule..
19
Translated literally this means “hear the other Translated literally this means “hear the other side orside or
casecase88” ” (Wiechers Administrative Law 210)(Wiechers Administrative Law 210). The audi . The audi alteram rule is an ancient rule that has existed alteram rule is an ancient rule that has existed
since thesince thedawn of timedawn of time9 9 (Tladi the audi alteram partem rule in(Tladi the audi alteram partem rule inadministrative law 1, Schwartz Administrative Law 202,administrative law 1, Schwartz Administrative Law 202,Wade Administrative Law)Wade Administrative Law). The cardinal principle that . The cardinal principle that
nonoman is to be judged without being heard was man is to be judged without being heard was
known toknown tothe Greeks, as can be gleaned from old inscribed-the Greeks, as can be gleaned from old inscribed-
upon upon images in places where justice was administered. images in places where justice was administered.
20
NATURAL JUSTICENATURAL JUSTICE
The application of the The application of the audi alteram partemaudi alteram partem rule, rule, as is the case with many other concepts, has as is the case with many other concepts, has been eclecticbeen eclectic1010 (Graig Administrative Law 253)(Graig Administrative Law 253), but it , but it developed certain nuances in the decisions of the developed certain nuances in the decisions of the civil courts. The rule entails four principles: civil courts. The rule entails four principles:
21
Firstly, a party to an administrative enquiry must Firstly, a party to an administrative enquiry must bebe
afforded an opportunity to state his or her case afforded an opportunity to state his or her case before a before a
decision is reached, if such a decision is likely to decision is reached, if such a decision is likely to affect affect
his or her rights or legitimate expectations.his or her rights or legitimate expectations.
Secondly, prejudicial facts must be communicated Secondly, prejudicial facts must be communicated to theto the
person who may be affected by the administrativeperson who may be affected by the administrativedecision, in order to enable him or her to rebut decision, in order to enable him or her to rebut
suchsuchfacts.facts.
22
Thirdly, the rule also stipulates that the Thirdly, the rule also stipulates that the administrative tribunal which has taken the administrative tribunal which has taken the decision must give reasons for its decision.decision must give reasons for its decision.
Fourthly, the rule entails that the administrative Fourthly, the rule entails that the administrative organ exercising the discretion must be impartial. organ exercising the discretion must be impartial. As a general rule it may be said that the As a general rule it may be said that the principles of natural justice apply whenever an principles of natural justice apply whenever an administrative act is quasi-judicial if it affects the administrative act is quasi-judicial if it affects the rights and liberties of an individual.rights and liberties of an individual.11 11 (Baxter 1979 (Baxter 1979 SALJ 608-609)SALJ 608-609)
23
South African courts classify the functions of the South African courts classify the functions of the administration into four broad categories : administration into four broad categories : Legislative, judicial, quasi-judicial, and purely Legislative, judicial, quasi-judicial, and purely administrative (including ministerial). It has administrative (including ministerial). It has generally been held that only judicial and quasi-generally been held that only judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings need follow the audi alteram judicial proceedings need follow the audi alteram partem rulepartem rule12 12 (Baxter 1979 SALJ 610)(Baxter 1979 SALJ 610)..
A quasi-judicial act is an act which resembles a A quasi-judicial act is an act which resembles a judicial act but is not a judicial act because the judicial act but is not a judicial act because the organ performing it is not a judicial organ and organ performing it is not a judicial organ and therefore does not perform a judicialtherefore does not perform a judicial1313(Wiechers (Wiechers Administrative Law 123)Administrative Law 123)
24
In R v NomvetiIn R v Nomveti1414 (160 2 SA 108 (E) 120F)(160 2 SA 108 (E) 120F) the court the court stated a function which is judicial or quasi-judicial stated a function which is judicial or quasi-judicial as opposed to one which may be called purely as opposed to one which may be called purely administrative involves the exercise of powers administrative involves the exercise of powers affecting legal rights and an enquiry into matters affecting legal rights and an enquiry into matters relating to such rights.relating to such rights.
In Laubsher v Native Commissioner, Piet RetiefIn Laubsher v Native Commissioner, Piet Retief1515 ( 1958( 1958
1 SA 546 (A) 549E-G)1 SA 546 (A) 549E-G) the facts were as follows: the facts were as follows:
25
In terms of the Native Trust and Land Act In terms of the Native Trust and Land Act 1616 (Act 18 of(Act 18 of
1936)1936) no person had the right to enter a native trust areano person had the right to enter a native trust areawithout the written consent of the person acting underwithout the written consent of the person acting underthe authority of the trustee. In the case underthe authority of the trustee. In the case underconsideration, the official authorized to give such writtenconsideration, the official authorized to give such writtenconsent was the respondent, the Native Commissioner ofconsent was the respondent, the Native Commissioner ofPiet Retief.Piet Retief.
Laubscher, an attorney, applied for written permission toLaubscher, an attorney, applied for written permission toenter a trust area in order to consult his client, a localenter a trust area in order to consult his client, a localchief. Permission was refused by the Nativechief. Permission was refused by the NativeCommissioner. Commissioner.
26
Laubcher applied unsuccessfully to the Supreme Laubcher applied unsuccessfully to the Supreme CourtCourt
(the Transvaal Provincial Division) for relief. He(the Transvaal Provincial Division) for relief. Hethereupon appealed to the Appellate Division. Thethereupon appealed to the Appellate Division. Thegravamen of his complaint was that the gravamen of his complaint was that the
respondent hadrespondent hadnot afforded him the opportunity to be heard not afforded him the opportunity to be heard refusing his application to enter the trust property refusing his application to enter the trust property
for thefor thepurposes of carrying out his lawful profession.purposes of carrying out his lawful profession.
27
The Appellate Division held that the The Appellate Division held that the audi alteram audi alteram partempartem
rule did not apply to the appellant. The court rule did not apply to the appellant. The court furtherfurther
stated that the refusal of permission did not stated that the refusal of permission did not prejudiciallyprejudicially
affect Laubcher's liberty or property or other legal affect Laubcher's liberty or property or other legal rightright
and that the granting of permission was intended by and that the granting of permission was intended by thethe
legislature to be purely administrative act allowing legislature to be purely administrative act allowing thethe
official an absolute discretion.official an absolute discretion.
28
In Administrateur van Suidwes-Afrika v PietersIn Administrateur van Suidwes-Afrika v Pieters17 17 (1973 1(1973 1
SA 850(A) 861-861F-1)SA 850(A) 861-861F-1), an application by the , an application by the respondent, a coloured attorney who had formerly respondent, a coloured attorney who had formerly practiced in Johannesburg, for a permanent resident practiced in Johannesburg, for a permanent resident permit in the Territory of South West Africa had been permit in the Territory of South West Africa had been refused by the second appellant, the Administrative-refused by the second appellant, the Administrative-Executive Committee. An application to review this Executive Committee. An application to review this decision and to have it set aside was granted by the decision and to have it set aside was granted by the court. Pieter's case was inter alia that he had not been court. Pieter's case was inter alia that he had not been afforded the opportunity of being heard. afforded the opportunity of being heard.
29
The Appellate Division found that Pieters had no The Appellate Division found that Pieters had no existing existing
rights that required protection and it also found rights that required protection and it also found that the that the
Administrator-in-Executive Committee, in Administrator-in-Executive Committee, in considering the considering the
application, had exercised a“purely application, had exercised a“purely administrative”administrative”
function with unlimited discretion.function with unlimited discretion.
30
WiechersWiechers1818(Wiechers Administrative Law 133-134)(Wiechers Administrative Law 133-134) does does notnot
agree with the court's decision in the Pieters case. agree with the court's decision in the Pieters case. He He
argues that Pieters' freedom to settle in South argues that Pieters' freedom to settle in South Africa and Africa and
to practice a profession for which he was fully to practice a profession for which he was fully qualified, qualified,
were violated. were violated.
31
He further argues that government functions that areHe further argues that government functions that are
performed in the exercise of government power must –performed in the exercise of government power must –
in the absence of express statutory permission to the in the absence of express statutory permission to the
opposite – always take into account both the rights and opposite – always take into account both the rights and
the general freedoms of subjects. According to thethe general freedoms of subjects. According to the
court, the administrator had an unfettered discretion tocourt, the administrator had an unfettered discretion to
grant or refuse permission.grant or refuse permission.
32
However, in administrative law it is unacceptable However, in administrative law it is unacceptable toto
speak about unbounded or unfettered discretions,speak about unbounded or unfettered discretions,because this reasoning is contrary to the basic because this reasoning is contrary to the basic
principleprincipleof legality. This principle, it is agreed. Should of legality. This principle, it is agreed. Should
underpinunderpinthe administration of every state founded on the administration of every state founded on
legality,legality,including South Africa.including South Africa.
33
The The audi alteram partemaudi alteram partem rule seeks to promote rule seeks to promote objectiveobjective
and informed decisions. Thus it is important that and informed decisions. Thus it is important that it beit be
observed prior to the observed prior to the decisiondecision1919 (Baxter (Baxter AdministrativeAdministrative
Law 587)Law 587).. The rule would normally apply before an The rule would normally apply before anadministrative organ performs its administrative organ performs its actact2020 (Wiechers(Wiechers
Administrative Law 208)Administrative Law 208). .
34
The application of The application of audi alteram partemaudi alteram partem rule was rule was broughtbrought
out in the case of Board of Education v Riceout in the case of Board of Education v Rice2121 (1911 AC (1911 AC
182)182), when the court stated that the Board of , when the court stated that the Board of Education Education
had to ascertain the facts as well as listen to both had to ascertain the facts as well as listen to both sides, sides,
for that is a duty upon everyone who decides an for that is a duty upon everyone who decides an issue issue
that may have an impact on a person's rights.that may have an impact on a person's rights.
35
In Chief Constable Pietermaritzburg v IshimIn Chief Constable Pietermaritzburg v Ishim22 22 (1908 29 (1908 29 NLRNLR
338 341)338 341) the court held that it is a principle of common the court held that it is a principle of common law that no man shall be condemned unheard, and it law that no man shall be condemned unheard, and it would require very clear words in the statute to would require very clear words in the statute to
deprive a deprive a man of that right. man of that right.
36
This court's decision shows that the This court's decision shows that the audi alteram audi alteram partempartem
rule would only be excluded if partliament intended its rule would only be excluded if partliament intended its
exclusion, irrespective of whether or not the rights of exclusion, irrespective of whether or not the rights of
individuals are affected. The individuals are affected. The audi alteram partemaudi alteram partem rule rule
ensures a free and impartial administrative process, ensures a free and impartial administrative process,
within which decisions and cognisance of facts and within which decisions and cognisance of facts and circumstances, occur altogether openlycircumstances, occur altogether openly2323 (1908 29 NLR(1908 29 NLR
338D)338D)..
37
The The audi alteram partemaudi alteram partem rule implies that a person must rule implies that a person mustbe given the opportunity to argue his case. This appliesbe given the opportunity to argue his case. This appliesnot only to formal administrative enquiries or hearings,not only to formal administrative enquiries or hearings,but also to any prior proceedings that could lead to anbut also to any prior proceedings that could lead to aninfringement of existing rights, privileges and freedoms,infringement of existing rights, privileges and freedoms,and implies that potentially prejudicial facts andand implies that potentially prejudicial facts andconsiderations must be communicated to the person whoconsiderations must be communicated to the person whomay be affected by the administrative decision, to enablemay be affected by the administrative decision, to enablehim to rebut the allegations. him to rebut the allegations.
38
This condition will be satisfied if the material This condition will be satisfied if the material content of content of
the prejudicial facts, information or considerations the prejudicial facts, information or considerations has has
been revealed to the interested partybeen revealed to the interested party2424 (Wiechers (Wiechers
Administrative Law 210-211)Administrative Law 210-211)..
39
In Le Roux v Minister van Bantoe-Administrasie enIn Le Roux v Minister van Bantoe-Administrasie en-Ontwekkeling-Ontwekkeling2525 (1996 3 SA 250 (A) 491E-F)(1996 3 SA 250 (A) 491E-F) the court the court
held held that in general the audi alteram partem rule is that in general the audi alteram partem rule is
applied applied only where a statutory functionary is assigned the only where a statutory functionary is assigned the
power power to give a decision that affects the rights of to give a decision that affects the rights of
another.another.
40
NATURAL JUSTICENATURAL JUSTICE
2.2. POSITION AFTER 1994POSITION AFTER 1994
2.12.1 INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION
The interim ConstitutionThe interim Constitution2626 (Act 200 of 1993(Act 200 of 1993)) came came intointo
force on 27 April 1994. Its effect on the South force on 27 April 1994. Its effect on the South AfricanAfrican
legal system can be described as revolutionary. legal system can be described as revolutionary. Basically, the interim Constitution brought about Basically, the interim Constitution brought about
threethreefundamental changesfundamental changes2727 (De Waal, Currie and Erasmus (De Waal, Currie and Erasmus
Bill ofBill of
Rights 2)Rights 2)..
41
Firstly, for the first time in South Africa's history, Firstly, for the first time in South Africa's history, thethe
franchise and associated political rights were franchise and associated political rights were accorded toaccorded to
all citizens without racial qualification. The all citizens without racial qualification. The interiminterim
Constitution brought to an end the racially Constitution brought to an end the racially qualifiedqualified
constitutional order that accompanied three constitutional order that accompanied three hundredhundred
years of colonialism, segregation and apartheid.years of colonialism, segregation and apartheid.
42
Secondly, the doctrine of parliament supremacySecondly, the doctrine of parliament supremacyWas replaced by the doctrine of constitutional Was replaced by the doctrine of constitutional supremacy. A Bill of Rights was put in place to supremacy. A Bill of Rights was put in place to safeguard human rights, ending centuries of safeguard human rights, ending centuries of state-sanctioned abuse and lastly the strong state-sanctioned abuse and lastly the strong central government of the past was replaced by central government of the past was replaced by a state with federal elements. The Westminister-a state with federal elements. The Westminister-style electoral system was replaced by a system style electoral system was replaced by a system based on proportional representation.based on proportional representation.
43
Before 1994 effective protection of human rightsBefore 1994 effective protection of human rightsthrough the courts was virtually impossible. through the courts was virtually impossible. Constitutional law was dominated by the doctrine ofConstitutional law was dominated by the doctrine ofparliamentary supremacy, which dictated that parliamentary supremacy, which dictated that Parliament was the supreme law-making authority inParliament was the supreme law-making authority inthe state. The common law provided some protectionthe state. The common law provided some protectionfor individual rights but Parliament could pass for individual rights but Parliament could pass
legislationlegislationamending the common law in whatever way it thoughtamending the common law in whatever way it thoughtfitfit2828 (De Waal, Currie and Erasmus Bill of Rights 2)(De Waal, Currie and Erasmus Bill of Rights 2). .
44
This position was changed by the interim This position was changed by the interim Constitution. Constitution.
The development of administrative common law The development of administrative common law by the by the
courts was substituted by a process in which courts was substituted by a process in which legislatures legislatures
and the courts develop administrative law by and the courts develop administrative law by giving giving
effect to constitutional concepts and principleseffect to constitutional concepts and principles2929 (Rautenbach and Malherbe Constitutional Law 232)(Rautenbach and Malherbe Constitutional Law 232)..
45
The interim Constitution developed various guidelines,The interim Constitution developed various guidelines,indicating when to apply the audi alteram partem ruleindicating when to apply the audi alteram partem rulewithin the broader framework of constitutionalwithin the broader framework of constitutionalsupremacy. This common law rule was codified insupremacy. This common law rule was codified insection 24 of the interim Constitution. The rule could section 24 of the interim Constitution. The rule could
nonolonger be regarded as a common law rule oflonger be regarded as a common law rule ofadministrative law, it now had a constitutional basis. administrative law, it now had a constitutional basis. Section 24 of the interim Constitution provided:Section 24 of the interim Constitution provided:3030 (S (S
24(a)24(a)24(d) of the interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa,24(d) of the interim Constitution of the Republic of South Africa,1993)1993)
46
24.24. Every person shall have the right to -Every person shall have the right to -
(a)(a) lawful administrative action where any of his or lawful administrative action where any of his or her rights or interests are affected or her rights or interests are affected or
threatened;threatened;
(b)(b) procedurally fair administrative action where any procedurally fair administrative action where any of his or her rights or legitimate of his or her rights or legitimate
expectations are expectations are affected or threatened; affected or threatened;
©© be furnished with reasons in writing for be furnished with reasons in writing for administrative action which affects any of administrative action which affects any of
his or his or her rights or interests unless the her rights or interests unless the reasons for such reasons for such action have been made public; action have been made public; andand
(d)(d) Administrative action which is justifiable in Administrative action which is justifiable in relation relation to the reasons given for it where any of his to the reasons given for it where any of his or her or her rights are affected or threatened.rights are affected or threatened.
47
Section 24(b) of the interim Constitution extended Section 24(b) of the interim Constitution extended thethe
application of procedural fairness to those whose application of procedural fairness to those whose rightsrights
or legitimate expectations were affected or or legitimate expectations were affected or threatened. threatened.
The immediate significance of this provision is The immediate significance of this provision is that thethat the
application of fairness no longer depends on application of fairness no longer depends on legislativelegislative
whim.whim.3131 (Hoexter and Currie The new Constitutional and(Hoexter and Currie The new Constitutional andAdministrative Law Volume two 211)Administrative Law Volume two 211)
48
NATURAL JUSTICENATURAL JUSTICE
3.3. FINAL CONSTITUTIONFINAL CONSTITUTION
3.13.1 INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION
The requirements of natural justice oblige a functionary The requirements of natural justice oblige a functionary to act fairly whenever a decision which is likely to to act fairly whenever a decision which is likely to prejudice another is taken by such a person. Section prejudice another is taken by such a person. Section 333332 32 (S33(1) of Act 108 of 1996)(S33(1) of Act 108 of 1996) of the final Constitution does of the final Constitution does not distinguish between rights, interests, property and not distinguish between rights, interests, property and legitimate expectations. This section provides that legitimate expectations. This section provides that everyone is entitled to administrative action which is everyone is entitled to administrative action which is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.
49
In terms of the common law, the courts required In terms of the common law, the courts required thethe
administration to act procedurally fairly where administration to act procedurally fairly where theirtheir
actions affected rights. The interim Constitution actions affected rights. The interim Constitution alsoalso
required procedurally fair administrative action required procedurally fair administrative action whenwhen
rights or legitimate expectation were affected orrights or legitimate expectation were affected orthreatened.threatened.3333 (Devenish Administrative Law and Justice in (Devenish Administrative Law and Justice in
SouthSouthAfrica 159)Africa 159)
50
APPLICATION OF AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM RULE TO APPLICATION OF AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM RULE TO
EXECUTIVE DECISIONSEXECUTIVE DECISIONS
There has been much creative There has been much creative development of development of
the audi alteram partem rule since the the audi alteram partem rule since the introduction of the interim Constitution.introduction of the interim Constitution.3434 (Hoexter and Lyster Constitutional and (Hoexter and Lyster Constitutional and Administrative Law 196-197)Administrative Law 196-197)
In line with section 33(1) of the In line with section 33(1) of the ConstitutionConstitution3535
(S 33(1) of Act108 of 1996)(S 33(1) of Act108 of 1996) our courts have our courts have begun to develop the notion of fairness or begun to develop the notion of fairness or
a a duty to act fairly whenever an duty to act fairly whenever an
administrative administrative decision is made.decision is made.
51
The provisions of section 33(1) of the Constitution The provisions of section 33(1) of the Constitution onlyonly
apply to conduct defined as administrative action. apply to conduct defined as administrative action. TheThe
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act reaffirms thePromotion of Administrative Justice Act reaffirms theview that the right to procedural fairness is not view that the right to procedural fairness is not
simply a simply a codification of audi alteram partem rule as codification of audi alteram partem rule as
contained in contained in common law.common law.36 36 (Devenish, Govender and Hulme (Devenish, Govender and Hulme
Administrative Administrative
Law and Justice in South Africa 151)Law and Justice in South Africa 151)..
52
Section 33 of the 1996 Constitution has been qualifiedSection 33 of the 1996 Constitution has been qualifiedand given more detailed content by the Promotion ofand given more detailed content by the Promotion ofAdministrative Justice Act (PAJA)Administrative Justice Act (PAJA)3737 (Act 3 of 2000)(Act 3 of 2000). Section . Section I of PAJA describes administrative action as any decision I of PAJA describes administrative action as any decision taken, or any failure to take a decision, by an organ of taken, or any failure to take a decision, by an organ of state, juristic or natural person exercising or performing state, juristic or natural person exercising or performing public power or authority which adversely affects the public power or authority which adversely affects the rights of any person and which has a direct external rights of any person and which has a direct external
legal legal effect. effect.
53
Clearly the definition requires that the decision Clearly the definition requires that the decision taken must firstly adversely affect the rights of an taken must firstly adversely affect the rights of an individual and secondly have a direct external individual and secondly have a direct external
legal legal effect. This implies that the decision must be final effect. This implies that the decision must be final
and and binding.binding.38 38 ((Currie and Klaaren Promotion of Administrative Currie and Klaaren Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 80)Justice Act 80)
54
Section 3(1) of PAJA inter alia provides that Section 3(1) of PAJA inter alia provides that administrative action that materially and adversly administrative action that materially and adversly
affects affects the rights or legitimate expectations of any the rights or legitimate expectations of any
person must person must be procedurally fair. A fair administrative be procedurally fair. A fair administrative
procedure procedure depends on the circumstances of each case.depends on the circumstances of each case.3939 (S 3 (S 3
SASA
1151 (CC) 1183G-H/I and 11831/J-1184E)1151 (CC) 1183G-H/I and 11831/J-1184E)..
55
In Minister of Public 'works and Others v Kyalami In Minister of Public 'works and Others v Kyalami Ridge Ridge
Environmental AssociationEnvironmental Association4040 (2001 3 SA 1151 (CC) (2001 3 SA 1151 (CC) 1183G-H/I1183G-H/I
and 11831/J-1184E)and 11831/J-1184E), the respondents objected to a , the respondents objected to a government decision to provide temporary government decision to provide temporary accommodation to a group of people who lost accommodation to a group of people who lost
their their houses in Alexandra because of floods. The houses in Alexandra because of floods. The
temporary temporary accommodation was to be provided on the land of accommodation was to be provided on the land of
the the Leeuwkop prison, which belonged to the state. Leeuwkop prison, which belonged to the state.
56
The objection raised, was that the provision in the The objection raised, was that the provision in the area area
of accommodation to homeless people would of accommodation to homeless people would negatively negatively
affect the value of the fixed property of members affect the value of the fixed property of members of the of the
first respondent and that since the latter's rights first respondent and that since the latter's rights were were
being affected, they had been entitled to be given being affected, they had been entitled to be given a a
hearing before a decision was taken.hearing before a decision was taken.
57
The court held that no rights of the respondent's The court held that no rights of the respondent's members had been violated, that the members of the members had been violated, that the members of the respondent were not entitled to put their case, and that respondent were not entitled to put their case, and that the interest that they had in the price of their properties the interest that they had in the price of their properties and the nature of their neighbourhood was in terms of and the nature of their neighbourhood was in terms of section 33(b) of the 1996 Constitution not sufficient section 33(b) of the 1996 Constitution not sufficient ground to warrant procedural protection in terms of the ground to warrant procedural protection in terms of the Constitution.Constitution.4141 (Driver 2001 Annual Survey of South Africa 106(Driver 2001 Annual Survey of South Africa 106
107)107)..
58
In Nortje en ʼn Ander v Minister van Korrektiewe In Nortje en ʼn Ander v Minister van Korrektiewe Dienste Dienste
en Andereen Andere4242 (2001 3 SA 472 (SCA) 479B-F; Driver 2001(2001 3 SA 472 (SCA) 479B-F; Driver 2001
Annual Survey of South African Law 107)Annual Survey of South African Law 107) the appellants the appellants hadhad
been moved from the prisons in which they were been moved from the prisons in which they were serving long serving long
sentences, to C-Max, a part of Pretoria Central Prison. sentences, to C-Max, a part of Pretoria Central Prison. They They
were denied an opportunity to state their case against were denied an opportunity to state their case against being being
transferred, either before or after the move. transferred, either before or after the move.
59
The court held that he right to be heard comes The court held that he right to be heard comes into play into play
when an administrative decision affects a person when an administrative decision affects a person to such to such
an extent that the decision, according to the an extent that the decision, according to the person's person's
legitimate expectation, may not be taken without legitimate expectation, may not be taken without allowing him to state his case. Furthermore, in allowing him to state his case. Furthermore, in
each each case the question must be asked whether the case the question must be asked whether the
person person who was prejudiced by the relevant decision had who was prejudiced by the relevant decision had
had a had a fair and equitable opportunity to state his case.fair and equitable opportunity to state his case.
60
The court held that it was beyond doubt that the Deputy The court held that it was beyond doubt that the Deputy Director in the Department of Correctional Services to Director in the Department of Correctional Services to whom the Commissioner of Correctional Services had whom the Commissioner of Correctional Services had delegated his powers in this regard, had significantly delegated his powers in this regard, had significantly prejudiced the privileges the appellant had enjoyed up to prejudiced the privileges the appellant had enjoyed up to that time. In such a case the appellants had the that time. In such a case the appellants had the legitimate expectation that such a decision would not be legitimate expectation that such a decision would not be taken unless they had been offered the right to betaken unless they had been offered the right to beheard.heard.4343 (Driver 2001 Annual Survey of South Africa 107; 2001 3(Driver 2001 Annual Survey of South Africa 107; 2001 3
SA 472 (SCA) 479C-F)SA 472 (SCA) 479C-F) In terms of section 33 of the 1996 In terms of section 33 of the 1996Constitution every person has the right to procedurallyConstitution every person has the right to procedurallyfair administrative action.fair administrative action.
61
Despite the changing constitutional dispensation Despite the changing constitutional dispensation brought brought
about by the Constitution, the principles of common about by the Constitution, the principles of common law law
still afford guidance as to what will be procedurally still afford guidance as to what will be procedurally fair in fair in
a specific case.a specific case.
62
Under section 33 of the 1996 Constitution all Under section 33 of the 1996 Constitution all administrative action must be lawful, reasonable and administrative action must be lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. The all-or-nothing rights-based procedurally fair. The all-or-nothing rights-based approach belongs strictly to the position before approach belongs strictly to the position before
1994.1994.4444
(1989 4 SA 731 (A). See also 1997 3 SA 204 (A); 1999 2 SA 709(1989 4 SA 731 (A). See also 1997 3 SA 204 (A); 1999 2 SA 709
(SCA)(SCA)..
As a general rule, the right to procedural fairness As a general rule, the right to procedural fairness requires that a person who may be affected byrequires that a person who may be affected byadministrative action be heard before that action isadministrative action be heard before that action istaken. taken.
63
General application of the General application of the audi alteram partem audi alteram partem rule torule toexecutive decisions.executive decisions.
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Republic The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Republic and and
that law or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid and that law or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid and the the
obligations imposed by it must be be fulfilled.obligations imposed by it must be be fulfilled.4545 (Section 2 (Section 2
of Act 108 of 1996)of Act 108 of 1996) The national executive is responsible The national executive is responsible for for
the implementation of national legislation except the implementation of national legislation except where where
the Constitution or an Act of parliament provides the Constitution or an Act of parliament provides otherwise. (section 85(2)(c)) of Act 108 of 1996).otherwise. (section 85(2)(c)) of Act 108 of 1996).
64
The responsibility to implement laws constituteThe responsibility to implement laws constitute““administrative action” within the meaning of administrative action” within the meaning of
section 33section 33of the Constitution. President of the Republic of of the Constitution. President of the Republic of
South South Africa v South African Football Union.Africa v South African Football Union.4646 (2000 (1) SA (2000 (1) SA
11(cc) para 138)(cc) para 138)
The court held that the constitutional The court held that the constitutional responsibility to responsibility to
implement legislation is administrative decision.implement legislation is administrative decision.
65
First, policy may not be inconsistent with the First, policy may not be inconsistent with the Constitution Constitution
with the Constitution. It is argued that by not with the Constitution. It is argued that by not applyingapplying
the the audi alteram partemaudi alteram partem rule to executive decisions rule to executive decisions will will
amount to arbitrary decisions and contrary to theamount to arbitrary decisions and contrary to theConstitution.Constitution.
The decisions of the executive must not infringe on The decisions of the executive must not infringe on the the
rights and privileges of citizens of the State of Southrights and privileges of citizens of the State of SouthAfrica.Africa.
66
PROMOTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE ACTPROMOTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE ACT
The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act is not clear The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act is not clear on the application of the on the application of the audi alteram partermaudi alteram parterm rule to rule toexecutive decisions. To give effect to the executive decisions. To give effect to the constitutional right to procedural fairness, PAJA requires constitutional right to procedural fairness, PAJA requires a minimum set of procedures to be followed in every a minimum set of procedures to be followed in every case of administrative action materially and adversely case of administrative action materially and adversely affecting the right or legitimate expectations of any affecting the right or legitimate expectations of any person. Section 3(4) of PAJA requires that a departure person. Section 3(4) of PAJA requires that a departure from the prior hearing rule might be argued to be from the prior hearing rule might be argued to be necessary and justifiable. This requirement has not yet necessary and justifiable. This requirement has not yet dealt with by our courts.dealt with by our courts.
67
PAJA, by giving a narrow definition of an administrative PAJA, by giving a narrow definition of an administrative act, has not entirely solved the problem of what act, has not entirely solved the problem of what constitutes administrative action. Therefore, constitutes administrative action. Therefore, administrative action is restricted to decisions of an administrative action is restricted to decisions of an administrative nature as defined in PAJAadministrative nature as defined in PAJA..47 47 (Hoexter and(Hoexter and
Lyster Constitutional and Administrative Law 100)Lyster Constitutional and Administrative Law 100) According to According to section 33 of the Constitution, there is a duty to ensure section 33 of the Constitution, there is a duty to ensure procedural fairness in respect of administrative action. procedural fairness in respect of administrative action. Once conduct is identified as administrative action, it Once conduct is identified as administrative action, it must follow the prescribed proceduresmust follow the prescribed procedures4848 (Currie and Klaaren(Currie and KlaarenPromotion of Administrative Justice Act 92)Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 92)
68
This application of section 1 and 3 of PAJA excludes the This application of section 1 and 3 of PAJA excludes the application of the application of the audi alteram partemaudi alteram partem rule to rule to executive authority, in the sense that rights of executive authority, in the sense that rights of individuals who are subjects of an investigation must be individuals who are subjects of an investigation must be affected and that the action must have a direct, external affected and that the action must have a direct, external legal effect. However, recommendations of commissions legal effect. However, recommendations of commissions of inquiry, in the sense that rights are not regarded as of inquiry, in the sense that rights are not regarded as affecting the rights of an individual who is subjected to affecting the rights of an individual who is subjected to their investigations. According to Currie and Klaaren, the their investigations. According to Currie and Klaaren, the term “direct”, external legal effect” means that term “direct”, external legal effect” means that administrative action must have a real impact on a administrative action must have a real impact on a person's rights.person's rights.
69
Counsel were ad idem that whenever the Counsel were ad idem that whenever the respondent respondent
exercise a statutory power she does so within the exercise a statutory power she does so within the ambit ambit
of the administrative law and that her action is, of the administrative law and that her action is, therefore, an administration action. The decision therefore, an administration action. The decision
was was taken in the public interest.taken in the public interest.
70
GENERAL APPLICATION OF THE AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM RULEGENERAL APPLICATION OF THE AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM RULE
The case of Rakgoale and another v The Premier The case of Rakgoale and another v The Premier of Free of Free
State Province, case no:3065/2004, the applicants State Province, case no:3065/2004, the applicants brought an application that their constitutional brought an application that their constitutional
rights rights have been infringed by the Premier and have been infringed by the Premier and
specifically specifically referred to sections 12,23 and 33 of the referred to sections 12,23 and 33 of the
Constitution. Constitution. Applicants attack on the Premier decisions was a Applicants attack on the Premier decisions was a
two two pronged one, for purposes of this presentation, I pronged one, for purposes of this presentation, I
will deal will deal with only one i.e. Section 33 of the Constitution.with only one i.e. Section 33 of the Constitution.
71
The State v Schabir Shaik and 11 others. The The State v Schabir Shaik and 11 others. The accused accused
persons in this trial were Mr Schabir Shaik, who is persons in this trial were Mr Schabir Shaik, who is accused no 1, and ten of the corporate entities accused no 1, and ten of the corporate entities
that are that are part of his group of private companies. Accused part of his group of private companies. Accused
no 1 no 1 was found guilty on the main charge of was found guilty on the main charge of
contravening contravening section 1(1) (a) (1) of the Corruption Act.section 1(1) (a) (1) of the Corruption Act.
72
““Since all the accused companies were used at one timeSince all the accused companies were used at one timeor another to pay sums of money to Jacob Zuma in or another to pay sums of money to Jacob Zuma in contravention of Section 1(1) (a) (1) or (11) of the contravention of Section 1(1) (a) (1) or (11) of the Corruption Act and accused no 1 directed them to that Corruption Act and accused no 1 directed them to that end or made payments himself, all accused are found end or made payments himself, all accused are found guilty on the main charge on count 1.”guilty on the main charge on count 1.”
The Deputy President, as a result of this judgement was The Deputy President, as a result of this judgement was released of his duties by the President, I submit with released of his duties by the President, I submit with respect the respect the audi alteram partemaudi alteram partem rule was not applied. rule was not applied. The side of the story of the Deputy President was not The side of the story of the Deputy President was not heard in this case.heard in this case.
73
In SARFU and others v President of the RSA and In SARFU and others v President of the RSA and othersothers
1998, 10 BCLR 1256 (T) 12751, the question was 1998, 10 BCLR 1256 (T) 12751, the question was whether the President, in appointing the whether the President, in appointing the
commission, commission, acted in accordance with the principles and acted in accordance with the principles and
procedures procedures which in that particular situation or set of which in that particular situation or set of
circumstances circumstances were right and just and fair. Accordingly, the were right and just and fair. Accordingly, the
principle of principle of natural justice should have been enforced by the natural justice should have been enforced by the
court as court as a matter of policy irrespective of the merits of the a matter of policy irrespective of the merits of the
case.case.
74
APPLICATION OF THE AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM RULE APPLICATION OF THE AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM RULE TO EXECUTIVE DECISIONSTO EXECUTIVE DECISIONS
The commission's finding could clear or condemnThe commission's finding could clear or condemnSARFU. The fact that a commission is an advisory bodySARFU. The fact that a commission is an advisory bodydoes not, in the court's view, detract from the fact that does not, in the court's view, detract from the fact that
it it is likely in the ordinary course of events that the is likely in the ordinary course of events that the appointment of the commission in the case would cause appointment of the commission in the case would cause prejudice to SARFU, and its officials.prejudice to SARFU, and its officials.
It is am empty attempt to justify the exclusion of theIt is am empty attempt to justify the exclusion of theapplication of application of audi alteram partemaudi alteram partem rule to the rule to the proceedings of executive authority by defining its proceedings of executive authority by defining its application in terms of whether the administrative act in application in terms of whether the administrative act in question affects the individual's existing rights, liberties question affects the individual's existing rights, liberties or privileges.or privileges.
75
In President of the RSA and others v SARFU and In President of the RSA and others v SARFU and others others
1999 10 BCLR 1059 (cc) 1141F, the Constitutional 1999 10 BCLR 1059 (cc) 1141F, the Constitutional Court Court
had to consider whether the decision of th President had to consider whether the decision of th President in in
terms of section 84(2) of the Constitution to appoint terms of section 84(2) of the Constitution to appoint a a
commission of inquiry in order to investigate the commission of inquiry in order to investigate the affairsaffairs
of SARFU amounted to an administrative action. of SARFU amounted to an administrative action. The The
appellants appealed against the whole of the appellants appealed against the whole of the judgement judgement
and order made in the court a quo.and order made in the court a quo.
76
The court held that no rights were infringed by theThe court held that no rights were infringed by thePresident's decision to appoint the commission of inquiry President's decision to appoint the commission of inquiry and vest it with powers under the commission's act, and and vest it with powers under the commission's act, and that the that the audi alteram partemaudi alteram partem rule was not applicable. rule was not applicable. The court went further to state that the requirement of The court went further to state that the requirement of procedural fairness, which is an incident of natural procedural fairness, which is an incident of natural justice, though relevant to hearing before tribunals, is justice, though relevant to hearing before tribunals, is not necessarily relevant to every exercise of public not necessarily relevant to every exercise of public power. Yet, it could hardly have been suggested that power. Yet, it could hardly have been suggested that the commission would not have been entitled to take the commission would not have been entitled to take decision to call the witnesses without first hearing such decision to call the witnesses without first hearing such person.person.
77
8.8. OBSERVATIONSOBSERVATIONS
Since the decision in the case of Administrator Since the decision in the case of Administrator TransvaalTransvaal v Traubv Traub4949 (1989 4 SA 731 (A) 762B-C)(1989 4 SA 731 (A) 762B-C), the enactment of , the enactment of the the interim Constitutioninterim Constitution5050(S 24(b) of Act 200 0f 1993)(S 24(b) of Act 200 0f 1993), the , the
1996 1996 ConstitutionConstitution5151 (S 33(1) of Act 108 of 1996)(S 33(1) of Act 108 of 1996) and PAJA, and PAJA,
South South Africa administrative law has seen tremendous Africa administrative law has seen tremendous development. What can be regarded as a positive development. What can be regarded as a positive aspect of this development is that it is no longer aspect of this development is that it is no longer expected from the courts to apply the expected from the courts to apply the audi alteram audi alteram partempartem rule only when existing rights are affected. rule only when existing rights are affected.
78
In general, after the promulgation of the In general, after the promulgation of the interim and later the 1996 Constitution, our interim and later the 1996 Constitution, our courts have shown at times that they are not courts have shown at times that they are not necessarily opposed to the application of the necessarily opposed to the application of the audi audi alteramalteram partermparterm rule to the proceedings of rule to the proceedings of executive decisions.executive decisions.
However, these cases do not constitute direct However, these cases do not constitute direct authority for the application of the authority for the application of the audi alteram audi alteram partempartem rule to the proceedings of executive rule to the proceedings of executive decisions.decisions.5353 (2000 THRHR 110)(2000 THRHR 110)
79
In some interpretations of the application of In some interpretations of the application of the the audi audi alteram partermalteram parterm rule to commissions of inquiry, rule to commissions of inquiry, an an individual would never be entitled to a hearing individual would never be entitled to a hearing
because because it is perceived that none of his or her rights it is perceived that none of his or her rights
would be would be affected by the recommendations of the affected by the recommendations of the
commission. commission.
80
Even God himself did not pass sentence upon Even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam until he had first been called upon to Adam until he had first been called upon to defend himself. “Adam”, says God, “where art defend himself. “Adam”, says God, “where art thou? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I thou? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thee should’st not that commanded thee that thee should’st not that thee should’st not eat?” And the same question thee should’st not eat?” And the same question was put to Eve too.was put to Eve too.5353 (Wade and Forsyth (Wade and Forsyth Administrative Law 470)Administrative Law 470)
Section 33(1) of the 1996 Constitution should Section 33(1) of the 1996 Constitution should be be interpreted to allow the application of the interpreted to allow the application of the audi alteram audi alteram partempartem rule to executive decisions. rule to executive decisions.
Name changes of towns and streets are Name changes of towns and streets are executive executive decisions and are subjected to the decisions and are subjected to the audi alteram partemaudi alteram partem rulerule
Gross boarder citizensGross boarder citizens
I THANK YOUI THANK YOU
NDIYA BULELANDIYA BULELA