Hendricks v Church of the Province of Southern Africa, Diocese of Free State (2886/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 108 (17 June 2020)

Hendricks v Church of the Province of Southern Africa, Diocese of Free State (2886/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 108 (17 June 2020)

The court held that the respondent, as a voluntary religious association, does not exercise public power or perform a public function as contemplated by PAJA. Its actions lack the governmental element required for administrative action under PAJA. The applicant's reliance on PAJA was therefore misplaced. While the court acknowledged that procedural fairness is required under the common law, it found that the applicant failed to impugn the appellate decision of the Archbishop, which upheld the Bishop's decision to revoke the licence. As a result, reviewing only the Bishop's decision would be academic and have no practical effect. The application was dismissed on this basis, with costs...

Citation
[2020] ZAFSHC 108
Parties
Applicant: Lloyd Eugene Hendricks; Respondent: The Church of the Province of Southern Africa, Diocese of Free State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 June 2020
Case Number
2886/2019
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Naidoo, Chesiwe
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Internal Appeal Procedure, Procedural Fairness, Church Governance, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Internal Appeal Procedure Procedural Fairness Church Governance Judicial Review

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lloyd Eugene Hendricks

Applicant

The Church of the Province of Southern Africa, Diocese of Free State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's decision to revoke the applicant's licence constitutes administrative action under PAJA.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent complied with its own Canons and afforded the applicant procedural fairness.
  3. 3 Whether the failure to impugn the appellate decision of the Archbishop renders the review application moot.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondent, as a voluntary religious association, does not exercise public power or perform a public function as contemplated by PAJA. Its actions lack the governmental element required for administrative action under PAJA. The applicant's reliance on PAJA was therefore misplaced. While the court acknowledged that procedural fairness is required under the common law, it found that the applicant failed to impugn the appellate decision of the Archbishop, which upheld the Bishop's decision to revoke the licence. As a result, reviewing only the Bishop's decision would be academic and have no practical effect. The application was dismissed on this basis, with costs...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.