ADL2601 Assignment 01 Unique Number: 761262
Elelwani J Neluvhola Student Number: 47570059
Question 1
According to The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa ,1996, section 33(1) everyone
has the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair.
Procedural fairness has to do with the duty of the administrator to act towards a person in a
procedurally fair manner. From the facts given in the scenario the Minister has not acted in
a procedurally fair manner towards Mr sparrow when he decided to issue a banning order
against sparrow to be deported from the country, or otherwise be deported from South
Africa for a year to Mozambique. An administrator is not allowed to make any
administrative action that is not authorised by law. The banning order that was imposed on
Mr sparrow was immediate Sparrow was not given the opportunity to react to the ban.
Section 3(2)(b) of The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act No 3 of 2003(PAJA) provides
that in order to give effect to the right to procedurally fair administrative action, an
administrator, subject to subsection (4), must give a person referred to in section 1
(i) adequate notice of the nature and purpose of the proposed of the administrative action
(ii) a reasonable opportunity to make representations
(iii) a clear statement of the administrative action
(iv) adequate notice of any right of review or internal appeal, where applicable; and
(v) adequate notice of the right to request reasons in terms of section 5
In Dunn v Minister of defence and others 2006(2) 107 (T) the applicant had applied for a
position as head of a newly- formed anti-fraud division of the Department of Defence. Dunn
had held that position and did indeed constitute administrative action in terms of section
3(1) of PAJA. Coetzee (the fourth respondent) was appointed but according to the
documents that set out the rules of the appointment of senior management in the
Department, and the Interim Measures of the appointment of top officers was approved by
the second and first respondent on the 1st of July 2002. It was established that the
Minister’s decision was an action in terms of the Defence Act 42 of 2002 together with the
general regulations of the South African Defence force and the Reserve. Dunn who had
applied for the position was overlooked and not granted an interview, even though he was
led to believe that he would be given the opportunity to a hearing before the formal
seminar, and that did not materialise, only for him to find out that Coetzee had already
been appointed. Dunn was entitled to procedural fairness because his rights were infringed.
Section3(1) of PAJA provides that administrative action, which adversely affects the rights of
legitimate expectations of any person, must be procedurally fair.
Elelwani J Neluvhola Student Number: 47570059
Question 1
According to The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa ,1996, section 33(1) everyone
has the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair.
Procedural fairness has to do with the duty of the administrator to act towards a person in a
procedurally fair manner. From the facts given in the scenario the Minister has not acted in
a procedurally fair manner towards Mr sparrow when he decided to issue a banning order
against sparrow to be deported from the country, or otherwise be deported from South
Africa for a year to Mozambique. An administrator is not allowed to make any
administrative action that is not authorised by law. The banning order that was imposed on
Mr sparrow was immediate Sparrow was not given the opportunity to react to the ban.
Section 3(2)(b) of The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act No 3 of 2003(PAJA) provides
that in order to give effect to the right to procedurally fair administrative action, an
administrator, subject to subsection (4), must give a person referred to in section 1
(i) adequate notice of the nature and purpose of the proposed of the administrative action
(ii) a reasonable opportunity to make representations
(iii) a clear statement of the administrative action
(iv) adequate notice of any right of review or internal appeal, where applicable; and
(v) adequate notice of the right to request reasons in terms of section 5
In Dunn v Minister of defence and others 2006(2) 107 (T) the applicant had applied for a
position as head of a newly- formed anti-fraud division of the Department of Defence. Dunn
had held that position and did indeed constitute administrative action in terms of section
3(1) of PAJA. Coetzee (the fourth respondent) was appointed but according to the
documents that set out the rules of the appointment of senior management in the
Department, and the Interim Measures of the appointment of top officers was approved by
the second and first respondent on the 1st of July 2002. It was established that the
Minister’s decision was an action in terms of the Defence Act 42 of 2002 together with the
general regulations of the South African Defence force and the Reserve. Dunn who had
applied for the position was overlooked and not granted an interview, even though he was
led to believe that he would be given the opportunity to a hearing before the formal
seminar, and that did not materialise, only for him to find out that Coetzee had already
been appointed. Dunn was entitled to procedural fairness because his rights were infringed.
Section3(1) of PAJA provides that administrative action, which adversely affects the rights of
legitimate expectations of any person, must be procedurally fair.
