Bohler Udderholm Africa (Pty) Ltd v Manufacturing Development Board and Another (1347/2005) [2006] ZAGPHC 128 (5 June 2006)

Bohler Udderholm Africa (Pty) Ltd v Manufacturing Development Board and Another (1347/2005) [2006] ZAGPHC 128 (5 June 2006)

The court found that the applicant applied for SMEDP incentives as a single company and not as a division or branch. The guidelines available to applicants did not define 'divisions' or 'branches', nor did they specify which legal entities qualified. The internal guidelines relied upon by the respondents were not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] ZAGPHC 128
Parties
Applicant: Bohler Udderholm Africa (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Manufacturing Development Board; Respondent: Minister of Trade and Industry
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 June 2006
Case Number
1347/2005
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review granted; the Board's decisions refusing SMEDP incentives are set aside and the matter is referred back for reconsideration.
Judges
C Pretorius
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Rationality Review, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Rationality Review Procedural Fairness Judicial Review

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bohler Udderholm Africa (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Manufacturing Development Board

Respondent

Minister of Trade and Industry

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision of the Manufacturing Development Board to refuse SMEDP incentives to the applicant was rational and procedurally fair.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant qualified as a legal entity for SMEDP incentives under the relevant guidelines and statutes.
  3. 3 Whether the lack of definitions for 'divisions' and 'branches' in the guidelines rendered the decision unreasonable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant applied for SMEDP incentives as a single company and not as a division or branch. The guidelines available to applicants did not define 'divisions' or 'branches', nor did they specify which legal entities qualified. The internal guidelines relied upon by the respondents were not available to the applicant at the time of application. The respondents conceded that the applicant met all other requirements except for the alleged divisional structure. The court held that there was no rational basis to exclude the applicant, as its financial statements reflected a single entity and it acted in accordance with the available guidelines. The decision of the Board...

Court Disposition

Application for review granted; the Board's decisions refusing SMEDP incentives are set aside and the matter is referred back for reconsideration.

Orders

  • The first respondent's decisions of 21 January 2004 and 15 September 2004 refusing the applicant's application for SMEDP incentives are set aside.
  • It is declared that the applicant is a qualifying entity for purposes of its SMEDP application dated 14 February 2003.