Harambe Technologies (Pty) Ltd v Sentech SOC Ltd (2023/058224) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1162 (7 November 2024)

Harambe Technologies (Pty) Ltd v Sentech SOC Ltd (2023/058224) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1162 (7 November 2024)

The court found that Sentech failed to provide proper and adequate reasons for its administrative decisions as required by PAJA and Rule 53(1)(b). The documents attached to Sentech's affidavit did not constitute sufficient reasons, and the hearsay evidence provided by Sentech's legal practitioner was disregarded. Harambe's application to compel reasons under Rule 30A was granted, as Sentech was obliged to provide reasons in terms of section 5(1) of PAJA. The striking out application was dismissed as the hearsay evidence was disregarded without the need for a formal order. Sentech's application to set aside Harambe's Rule 35(14) notice was granted, as exceptional circumstances justifying...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 1162
Parties
Applicant: Harambe Technologies (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Sentech SOC Ltd; Respondent: Universal Service and Access Agency of South Africa; Respondent: Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 November 2024
Case Number
2023/058224
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Judgment on Interlocutory Applications in Review Proceedings
Outcome
Harambe's Rule 30A application to compel reasons is granted with costs on an attorney and client scale; Harambe's striking out application is dismissed with no order as to costs; Sentech's Rule 30 application to set aside Harambe's Rule 35(14) notice is granted with costs on a party and party scale, including costs...
Judges
JC Uys
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Judicial Review, Discovery in Motion Proceedings, Adequacy of Reasons, Striking Out, Costs Orders
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Judicial Review Discovery in Motion Proceedings Adequacy of Reasons Striking Out Costs Orders

Case Brief

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harambe Technologies (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Sentech SOC Ltd

Respondent

Universal Service and Access Agency of South Africa

Respondent

Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Judgment on Interlocutory Applications in Review Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Sentech SOC Ltd provided proper and adequate reasons for its administrative decisions as required by law.
  2. 2 Whether Harambe Technologies (Pty) Ltd is entitled to an order compelling Sentech to provide reasons under Rule 30A.
  3. 3 Whether the striking out application by Harambe regarding hearsay evidence in Sentech's affidavit should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Sentech failed to provide proper and adequate reasons for its administrative decisions as required by PAJA and Rule 53(1)(b). The documents attached to Sentech's affidavit did not constitute sufficient reasons, and the hearsay evidence provided by Sentech's legal practitioner was disregarded. Harambe's application to compel reasons under Rule 30A was granted, as Sentech was obliged to provide reasons in terms of section 5(1) of PAJA. The striking out application was dismissed as the hearsay evidence was disregarded without the need for a formal order. Sentech's application to set aside Harambe's Rule 35(14) notice was granted, as exceptional circumstances justifying...

Court Disposition

Harambe's Rule 30A application to compel reasons is granted with costs on an attorney and client scale; Harambe's striking out application is dismissed with no order as to costs; Sentech's Rule 30 application to set aside Harambe's Rule 35(14) notice is granted with costs on a party and party scale, including costs...

Orders

  • Sentech SOC Ltd is ordered to provide such reasons as it is in law required or desires to give or make, relating to the decisions set out under paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Harambe's notice of motion in its review application dated 15 June 2023, with costs to be paid by Sentech on a scale as between attorney and client.
  • Harambe's application in terms of Rule 6(15) for striking out is dismissed with no order as to costs.