Kasselman N.O. and Others v South African National Road Agency SOC Limited ("SANRAL") and Others (30098/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1786 (10 October 2023)

Kasselman N.O. and Others v South African National Road Agency SOC Limited ("SANRAL") and Others (30098/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1786 (10 October 2023)

The court found that SANRAL's decision to increase levy percentages was not administrative action as defined by PAJA, but rather a commercial negotiation between contracting parties. The power to set levy rates, although arising from legislation, is exercised in a manner akin to private contracting and does not have a direct, external legal effect beyond the parties involved. The applicants failed to exhaust internal remedies provided by the SANRAL Act, specifically the right to appeal to the Minister after the Board's decision. Since no final decision on the levy percentages was made by SANRAL's Board in respect of the current application, and the applicants did not pursue the prescribed...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1786
Parties
Applicant: Casper Daniel Kasselman N.O.; Applicant: Gertruida Susanna Kasselman N.O.; Applicant: BDV Administration of Estate (Pty) Ltd, represented by Bronwyn Claire Verster N.O. (Trustees of the Cornerstone Trust); Applicant: Loxodonta (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: South African National Road Agency SOC Limited ("SANRAL"); Respondent: Minister, Department of Transport; Respondent: Minister, Department of Minerals Resources and Energy
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 October 2023
Case Number
30098/2022
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judicial Review of Sanral's Decision to Increase Levy Percentages; Application for Review Under PAJA and Principle of Legality
Outcome
Application for review dismissed with costs.
Judges
Francis-Subbiah
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Principle of Legality, Contractual Negotiation, Internal Remedies Exhaustion, Public Function Vs Commercial Action
Administrative Law Commercial and Corporate Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Principle of Legality Contractual Negotiation Internal Remedies Exhaustion Public Function Vs Commercial Action

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Casper Daniel Kasselman N.O.

Applicant

Gertruida Susanna Kasselman N.O.

Applicant

BDV Administration of Estate (Pty) Ltd, represented by Bronwyn Claire Verster N.O. (Trustees of the Cornerstone Trust)

Applicant

Loxodonta (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

South African National Road Agency SOC Limited ("SANRAL")

Respondent

Minister, Department of Transport

Respondent

Minister, Department of Minerals Resources and Energy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judicial Review of Sanral's Decision to Increase Levy Percentages; Application for Review Under PAJA and Principle of Legality

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether SANRAL's decision to increase levy percentages constitutes administrative action under PAJA.
  2. 2 Whether SANRAL's conduct is reviewable under the principle of legality.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants exhausted internal remedies before approaching the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that SANRAL's decision to increase levy percentages was not administrative action as defined by PAJA, but rather a commercial negotiation between contracting parties. The power to set levy rates, although arising from legislation, is exercised in a manner akin to private contracting and does not have a direct, external legal effect beyond the parties involved. The applicants failed to exhaust internal remedies provided by the SANRAL Act, specifically the right to appeal to the Minister after the Board's decision. Since no final decision on the levy percentages was made by SANRAL's Board in respect of the current application, and the applicants did not pursue the prescribed...

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed with costs.