Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Others
2004 (7) BCLR 687 (CC)
CASE ANALYSIS
Facts
The applicant, Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd, was a small, black-owned fishing
company that applied for a quota to catch hake under South Africa’s post-apartheid
fishing quota system.
The Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, guided by the Chief Director of
Marine and Coastal Management, allocated fishing quotas under the Marine Living
Resources Act 18 of 1998 (MLRA).
The system aimed to transform the fishing industry — historically dominated by
large, white-owned companies — while maintaining economic viability and resource
sustainability.
Bato Star received a smaller quota than it applied for and claimed this decision was
unreasonable, unfair, and inconsistent with section 9 (equality) and section 33
(administrative justice) of the Constitution.
Issue
Whether the Chief Director’s quota allocation decision was lawful, reasonable, and
procedurally fair under section 6 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act
(PAJA).
More broadly:
How should transformation goals and administrative reasonableness be balanced when
implementing social and economic policies?
Court’s Reasoning (O’Regan J, for the Court)
1. Judicial Review Standard under PAJA
o The Court reaffirmed that courts must not substitute their own decisions for
those of administrators.
o The question is not whether the court would have made a different decision,
but whether the administrative decision was one a reasonable decision-maker
could have reached.
2. Contextual and Deferential Review
o The Court recognized that specialized administrative bodies (like Marine and
Coastal Management) have expertise in their areas.
2004 (7) BCLR 687 (CC)
CASE ANALYSIS
Facts
The applicant, Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd, was a small, black-owned fishing
company that applied for a quota to catch hake under South Africa’s post-apartheid
fishing quota system.
The Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, guided by the Chief Director of
Marine and Coastal Management, allocated fishing quotas under the Marine Living
Resources Act 18 of 1998 (MLRA).
The system aimed to transform the fishing industry — historically dominated by
large, white-owned companies — while maintaining economic viability and resource
sustainability.
Bato Star received a smaller quota than it applied for and claimed this decision was
unreasonable, unfair, and inconsistent with section 9 (equality) and section 33
(administrative justice) of the Constitution.
Issue
Whether the Chief Director’s quota allocation decision was lawful, reasonable, and
procedurally fair under section 6 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act
(PAJA).
More broadly:
How should transformation goals and administrative reasonableness be balanced when
implementing social and economic policies?
Court’s Reasoning (O’Regan J, for the Court)
1. Judicial Review Standard under PAJA
o The Court reaffirmed that courts must not substitute their own decisions for
those of administrators.
o The question is not whether the court would have made a different decision,
but whether the administrative decision was one a reasonable decision-maker
could have reached.
2. Contextual and Deferential Review
o The Court recognized that specialized administrative bodies (like Marine and
Coastal Management) have expertise in their areas.
