ADL2601
EXAM PACK
,ADL2601 – Case Study: Mr. Khulekani Moyo
1. Requirements for Just Administrative Action (8 marks)
Section 33 of the Constitution provides that everyone has the right to administrative
action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. PAJA gives effect to this right.
The key requirements are:
1. Lawfulness – the decision must be taken by a person with legal authority, within
the scope of their powers (Fedsure Life Assurance Ltd v Greater Johannesburg
Transitional Metropolitan Council 1999).
2. Reasonableness – the decision must be rationally connected to the information
before the administrator (Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental
Affairs 2004).
3. Procedural fairness – affected persons must have notice of the decision, an
opportunity to make representations, and reasons must be provided (President of
RSA v SARFU 2000).
4. Provision of reasons – PAJA s 5 entitles a person to request reasons for
administrative action.
2. Authoritative Sources the DG Could Rely On (7 marks)
If the Director-General wishes to defend the decision, he could rely on:
The Constitution (s 33) – administrative action may limit rights if lawful,
reasonable, and justifiable under s 36.
The National Identification Act – statutory authority allowing revocation of IDs
under specified conditions.
PAJA – especially provisions allowing for exclusion from fair hearing if urgent
national security issues are alleged (s 3(4)).
, These sources could support the claim that revocation was in the interests of
state security.
3. Judicial Review vs Appeal (10 marks)
Judicial review is the process by which courts examine the legality,
reasonableness, and fairness of administrative decisions. The court does not
substitute its decision but ensures the administrator acted within the law. It is
grounded in s 33 of the Constitution and PAJA.
Appeal, in contrast, concerns the merits of the case – whether the decision was
right or wrong. The appellate body may substitute its decision for that of the
administrator.
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association v President of RSA (2000)
established that all exercises of public power are subject to legality review.
Thus, review is about legality and process, while appeal is about correctness of
the outcome.
4. Does the DG’s Decision Amount to Administrative Action? (15 marks)
Yes. PAJA defines administrative action as a decision by an organ of state exercising a
public power or function that adversely affects rights.
The Director-General is an organ of state (s 239, Constitution).
The revocation of an ID directly affects Mr. Moyo’s rights (residency,
employment, access to services).
The action has direct, external legal effect.
Relevant case law:
Fedsure confirmed that when public bodies exercise public power, their conduct
must be lawful.
President of RSA v SARFU emphasised that fairness and reasonableness are
required.
, Grey’s Marine Hout Bay v Minister of Public Works (2005) confirmed that
decisions with external legal effect qualify as administrative action.
Thus, the DG’s act is administrative action and must comply with s 33 and PAJA.
5. Persuasive Sources for Mr. Moyo (4 marks)
International law: Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
(fair trial and due process).
Comparative law: Judgments from foreign jurisdictions protecting non-citizens
from arbitrary administrative action.
Academic commentary: writings on due process and fairness in immigration/ID
contexts.
These sources are not binding but persuasive to South African courts (s 39(1)(c)
Constitution).
6. Administrator – Definition and Role (5 marks)
Administrator: In PAJA, an administrator is any organ of state or natural/juristic
person exercising a public power or performing a public function in terms of
legislation.
In this case, the Director-General of DCRC is the administrator.
An administrator’s role is to implement laws and policies by making decisions
that affect individuals’ rights and duties.
7. Can Mr. Moyo Immediately Approach Court? (2 marks)
No. Under PAJA s 7(2), an aggrieved person must exhaust internal remedies before
going to court, unless exceptional circumstances justify bypassing them.
8. Features of the Internal Remedies Principle (3 marks)
1. Mandatory requirement – courts will not entertain matters unless remedies are
exhausted (PAJA s 7(2)).
EXAM PACK
,ADL2601 – Case Study: Mr. Khulekani Moyo
1. Requirements for Just Administrative Action (8 marks)
Section 33 of the Constitution provides that everyone has the right to administrative
action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. PAJA gives effect to this right.
The key requirements are:
1. Lawfulness – the decision must be taken by a person with legal authority, within
the scope of their powers (Fedsure Life Assurance Ltd v Greater Johannesburg
Transitional Metropolitan Council 1999).
2. Reasonableness – the decision must be rationally connected to the information
before the administrator (Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental
Affairs 2004).
3. Procedural fairness – affected persons must have notice of the decision, an
opportunity to make representations, and reasons must be provided (President of
RSA v SARFU 2000).
4. Provision of reasons – PAJA s 5 entitles a person to request reasons for
administrative action.
2. Authoritative Sources the DG Could Rely On (7 marks)
If the Director-General wishes to defend the decision, he could rely on:
The Constitution (s 33) – administrative action may limit rights if lawful,
reasonable, and justifiable under s 36.
The National Identification Act – statutory authority allowing revocation of IDs
under specified conditions.
PAJA – especially provisions allowing for exclusion from fair hearing if urgent
national security issues are alleged (s 3(4)).
, These sources could support the claim that revocation was in the interests of
state security.
3. Judicial Review vs Appeal (10 marks)
Judicial review is the process by which courts examine the legality,
reasonableness, and fairness of administrative decisions. The court does not
substitute its decision but ensures the administrator acted within the law. It is
grounded in s 33 of the Constitution and PAJA.
Appeal, in contrast, concerns the merits of the case – whether the decision was
right or wrong. The appellate body may substitute its decision for that of the
administrator.
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association v President of RSA (2000)
established that all exercises of public power are subject to legality review.
Thus, review is about legality and process, while appeal is about correctness of
the outcome.
4. Does the DG’s Decision Amount to Administrative Action? (15 marks)
Yes. PAJA defines administrative action as a decision by an organ of state exercising a
public power or function that adversely affects rights.
The Director-General is an organ of state (s 239, Constitution).
The revocation of an ID directly affects Mr. Moyo’s rights (residency,
employment, access to services).
The action has direct, external legal effect.
Relevant case law:
Fedsure confirmed that when public bodies exercise public power, their conduct
must be lawful.
President of RSA v SARFU emphasised that fairness and reasonableness are
required.
, Grey’s Marine Hout Bay v Minister of Public Works (2005) confirmed that
decisions with external legal effect qualify as administrative action.
Thus, the DG’s act is administrative action and must comply with s 33 and PAJA.
5. Persuasive Sources for Mr. Moyo (4 marks)
International law: Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
(fair trial and due process).
Comparative law: Judgments from foreign jurisdictions protecting non-citizens
from arbitrary administrative action.
Academic commentary: writings on due process and fairness in immigration/ID
contexts.
These sources are not binding but persuasive to South African courts (s 39(1)(c)
Constitution).
6. Administrator – Definition and Role (5 marks)
Administrator: In PAJA, an administrator is any organ of state or natural/juristic
person exercising a public power or performing a public function in terms of
legislation.
In this case, the Director-General of DCRC is the administrator.
An administrator’s role is to implement laws and policies by making decisions
that affect individuals’ rights and duties.
7. Can Mr. Moyo Immediately Approach Court? (2 marks)
No. Under PAJA s 7(2), an aggrieved person must exhaust internal remedies before
going to court, unless exceptional circumstances justify bypassing them.
8. Features of the Internal Remedies Principle (3 marks)
1. Mandatory requirement – courts will not entertain matters unless remedies are
exhausted (PAJA s 7(2)).
