Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors and Others v East Rand Member District of Chartered Accountants and Others (945/2022; 40/2023) [2024] ZASCA 114; [2024] 4 All SA 23 (SCA) (22 July 2024)

Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors and Others v East Rand Member District of Chartered Accountants and Others (945/2022; 40/2023) [2024] ZASCA 114; [2024] 4 All SA 23 (SCA) (22 July 2024)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Board's decisions to prescribe assurance fees for Category C work and tax practitioner fees were administrative actions subject to review under PAJA. The review application was not time-barred, as the impugned decisions only became effective upon publication in the Government Gazette. The Board acted ultra vires by imposing assurance fees on Category C work not linked to inspection costs, and its methodology was irrational and not authorised by the Act. The imposition of tax practitioner fees was within the Board's powers, but the process was procedurally unfair as affected parties were not afforded an opportunity to make representations. The...

Citation
[2024] ZASCA 114
Parties
Appellant: Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors; Appellant: Chairperson of the Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors; Appellant: Chief Executive Officer of the Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors; Respondent: East Rand Member District of Chartered Accountants; Respondent: Rudolf Johannes Brits; Respondent: Minister of Finance
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 July 2024
Case Number
945/2022; 40/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal succeeds in part; High Court orders set aside and replaced. Decisions on fee prescription and removal of fee concession remitted to the Board for reconsideration by 31 March 2025, with procedural fairness. Board to repay or credit members for invalid assurance fees. Costs awarded to respondents, including...
Judges
Zondi, Schippers, Weiner, Keightley, Bloem
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Ultra Vires, Procedural Fairness, Fee Prescription, Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Ultra Vires Procedural Fairness Fee Prescription Judicial Review +1 more

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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors

Appellant

Chairperson of the Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors

Appellant

Chief Executive Officer of the Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors

Appellant

East Rand Member District of Chartered Accountants

Respondent

Rudolf Johannes Brits

Respondent

Minister of Finance

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the impugned decisions of the Board constitute executive or administrative action.
  2. 2 Whether the review application was time-barred under section 7 of PAJA.
  3. 3 Whether the Board acted ultra vires in imposing Category C assurance fees and tax practitioner fees.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Board's decisions to prescribe assurance fees for Category C work and tax practitioner fees were administrative actions subject to review under PAJA. The review application was not time-barred, as the impugned decisions only became effective upon publication in the Government Gazette. The Board acted ultra vires by imposing assurance fees on Category C work not linked to inspection costs, and its methodology was irrational and not authorised by the Act. The imposition of tax practitioner fees was within the Board's powers, but the process was procedurally unfair as affected parties were not afforded an opportunity to make representations. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal succeeds in part; High Court orders set aside and replaced. Decisions on fee prescription and removal of fee concession remitted to the Board for reconsideration by 31 March 2025, with procedural fairness. Board to repay or credit members for invalid assurance fees. Costs awarded to respondents, including...

Orders

  • Paragraphs 117 (except 117.3), 118, 119, and 120 of the High Court's order are set aside and replaced.
  • Decisions to remove the fee concession and failure to reverse its removal are remitted to the Board for reconsideration by 31 March 2025, after giving effect to procedural fairness under PAJA.