Crossing Property Investments (Pty) Ltd v Information Officer: Department of Public Works, North- West and Another (366/07) [2007] ZANWHC 23 (21 June 2007)

CASE NO.: 366\07

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION)

In the matter between:

THE CROSSING PROPERTY INVESTMENT (PTY) LTD

APPLICANT

and

THE INFORMATION OFFICER: DEPARTMENT OF PULIC

WORKS, NORTH WEST PROVINCE

1ST RESPONDENT

THE MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF PULIC WORKS, NORTH WEST PROVINCE 2ND RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

MONAMA AJ:

INTRODUCTION

[1] The First Respondent is the Information Officer of the Department of Public Works of the North West Province. The Second Respondent is the Member of the Executive Council of the Department of Public Works in the North West Province. The Respondents’ principal place of business is Mmabatho, North West Province.

[2] The Applicant is a private company and its main place is in Illovo, Johannesburg.

[3] The Department of Public Works [hereinafter referred to as “the Department”] owns two plots in the Mmabatho/Mafikeng area which it intended to dispose of. On 14 October 2005 the Department published a notice in the Mail, the local newspaper informing the general public of its intention to dispose of the two plots and invited interested parties to make representations or objections regarding the intended disposals.

APPLICANT’S REACTION TO THE NOTICE

[4] On 2 November 2005, the Applicant requested certain information from the Chief Director of Infrastructure Directorate – Property Management: Department of Public Works through its agents. This written request also included various objections. These objections were termed “provisional”. The request was not in the prescribed form as prescribed in Section 18 of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2 of 2000, but in a letter form.

[5] On 2 December 2005, the Acting Director General of the Department of supplied certain written information to the Applicant’s agents. The said agents were not satisfied with the response and addressed another request in a letter dated 13 December 2005. On 6 February 2006 the Director: Property Management of the Department informed in writing Applicant’s agent that information tendered in their letter of 2 December 2005 is adequate.

[6] On 27 September 2006, the Applicant’s agents submitted a request in the prescribed form, namely form “A”. Again on 19 October 2006 a further correspondence was addressed to the First Respondent. These documents were acknowledged on 31 October 2006.

[7] On 14 November 2006 the Applicant dispatched a reminder to the first Respondent informing it of their default regarding the request of 27 September 2006. The said letter and “threat” therein contained did not produce the desired results. On 22 November 2006, the Applicant lodged an internal appeal against the First Respondent in terms of Section 75 of Act 2 of 2000. On 25 January 2007 the Applicant informed the First Respondent of its intention to approach this court for an appropriate relief. On 14 February 2007 the Applicant received a letter from the First Respondent informing it that the appeal has been refused.

APPLICATION

[8] On 22 February 2007 the Applicant launched the application and seeks the following order, that:

8.1 It be confirmed that the internal appeal, lodged by the Applicant with the First Respondent in terms of Section 75, read with Section 74 of Act 2 of 2000, was lodged within the frames as prescribed by Section 75(1)(a)(i) of Act 2 of 2000;

8.2 First Respondent’s decision that the Applicant’s internal appeal was lodged out of time be set aside in terms of the provision of Section 82 of Act 2 of 2000;

8.3 First Respondent be directed to consider and adjudicate Applicant’s internal appeal lodged by the Applicant on 21 November 2006, within 30 days from the date of the Honourable Court making this order, alternatively with a time prescribed by this Honourable Court.

8.4 Costs of the application against the First Respondent on scale as between attorney and client.

No costs order is sought against the Second Respondent except in the event of opposition.

[9]

APPEARANCES

DATE OF HEARING: 15 MAY 2007

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21 JUNE 2007

COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT: ADV ACKER

ATTORNEYS FOR APPLICANT: SMIT STANTON INC.

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS: ADV VAN WYK

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS: HERMAN SCHOLTZ ATT.