Kemp and Others v Wyk and Others (335/2004) [2005] ZASCA 77; [2008] 1 All SA 17 (SCA); 2005 (6) SA 519 (SCA) (19 September 2005)

Kemp and Others v Wyk and Others (335/2004) [2005] ZASCA 77; [2008] 1 All SA 17 (SCA); 2005 (6) SA 519 (SCA) (19 September 2005)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Director of Animal Health lawfully exercised his discretion in refusing the permit for importation of sable antelope from Zimbabwe. The Director was entitled to rely on the embargo policy, provided he was independently satisfied that the policy was appropriate to the particular case and did not treat it as a binding rule. The evidence established that the Director considered the application, albeit briefly, and concluded that the embargo was suitable in the circumstances. The court found no grounds to refer the matter for oral evidence, nor any basis to conclude that the decision was unlawful. The validity of the directive issued under s 6(3)(a)...

Citation
[2005] ZASCA 77
Parties
Appellant: Jacobus Johannes Kemp NO; Appellant: Alida Kemp NO; Appellant: Christiaan Frederick Muller NO; Appellant: Daniël Jacobus Goosen; Respondent: Dr JJH van Wyk; Respondent: Die Minister van Landbou NO; Respondent: Meat Industry Forum of South Africa
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 September 2005
Case Number
335/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision Refusing Application to Set Aside Administrative Refusal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Howie, Scott, Mthiyane, Nugent, Mlambo
Legal Topics
Exercise of Discretion, Application of Policy, Animal Diseases Act, Judicial Review, Importation Permits
Administrative Law Exercise of Discretion Application of Policy Animal Diseases Act Judicial Review Importation Permits

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacobus Johannes Kemp NO

Appellant

Alida Kemp NO

Appellant

Christiaan Frederick Muller NO

Appellant

Daniël Jacobus Goosen

Appellant

Dr JJH van Wyk

Respondent

Die Minister van Landbou NO

Respondent

Meat Industry Forum of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision Refusing Application to Set Aside Administrative Refusal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director of Animal Health lawfully exercised discretion in refusing a permit for importation of animals.
  2. 2 Whether application of an embargo policy precluded proper exercise of discretion.
  3. 3 Whether the refusal was unlawful due to failure to consider alternative proposals by the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Director of Animal Health lawfully exercised his discretion in refusing the permit for importation of sable antelope from Zimbabwe. The Director was entitled to rely on the embargo policy, provided he was independently satisfied that the policy was appropriate to the particular case and did not treat it as a binding rule. The evidence established that the Director considered the application, albeit briefly, and concluded that the embargo was suitable in the circumstances. The court found no grounds to refer the matter for oral evidence, nor any basis to conclude that the decision was unlawful. The validity of the directive issued under s 6(3)(a)...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.