Maharaj and Others v Mandag Centre of Investigative Journalism NPC and Others (844/2016) [2017] ZASCA 138; 2018 (1) SA 471 (SCA); [2018] 1 All SA 369 (SCA); 2018 (1) SACR 253 (SCA) (29 September 2017)

Maharaj and Others v Mandag Centre of Investigative Journalism NPC and Others (844/2016) [2017] ZASCA 138; 2018 (1) SA 471 (SCA); [2018] 1 All SA 369 (SCA); 2018 (1) SACR 253 (SCA) (29 September 2017)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the NDPP failed to properly exercise the discretion conferred by s 41(6) of the National Prosecuting Authority Act. The NDPP did not consider the actual s 28 record before refusing permission to publish, rendering the decision irrational and unlawful. The NDPP's reliance on a rigid policy of non-disclosure, the interests of third parties, pending criminal charges, and the existence of a commission of inquiry were either irrelevant or not properly substantiated. The information in question was already in the public domain, and the NDPP's dismissal of this fact was incorrect. The public interest in transparency regarding the conduct of senior public...

Citation
[2017] ZASCA 138
Parties
Appellant: Maharaj Sathyandranath Ragunanan; Appellant: Maharaj Zarina Carrim; Appellant: National Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Mandag Centre of Investigative Journalism NPC; Respondent: M&G Media Limited; Respondent: Stephan Patrick "Sam" Sole
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 September 2017
Case Number
844/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division, Pretoria; Judgment Delivered by Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Ponnan, Petse, Tsoka, Mbatha, Schippers
Legal Topics
Review of Administrative Action, Freedom of Expression, Public Interest, Discretion of Prosecuting Authority, Striking Out Application, Public Domain Doctrine
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Review of Administrative Action Freedom of Expression Public Interest Discretion of Prosecuting Authority Striking Out Application +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 37 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maharaj Sathyandranath Ragunanan

Appellant

Maharaj Zarina Carrim

Appellant

National Director of Public Prosecutions

Appellant

Mandag Centre of Investigative Journalism NPC

Respondent

M&G Media Limited

Respondent

Stephan Patrick "Sam" Sole

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division, Pretoria; Judgment Delivered by Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the National Director of Public Prosecutions properly exercised discretion under s 41(6) of the National Prosecuting Authority Act in refusing permission to publish the s 28 investigation record.
  2. 2 Whether the refusal was rational and lawful in light of the information already being in the public domain.
  3. 3 Whether the interests of third parties and pending criminal charges were relevant considerations.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the NDPP failed to properly exercise the discretion conferred by s 41(6) of the National Prosecuting Authority Act. The NDPP did not consider the actual s 28 record before refusing permission to publish, rendering the decision irrational and unlawful. The NDPP's reliance on a rigid policy of non-disclosure, the interests of third parties, pending criminal charges, and the existence of a commission of inquiry were either irrelevant or not properly substantiated. The information in question was already in the public domain, and the NDPP's dismissal of this fact was incorrect. The public interest in transparency regarding the conduct of senior public...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal by the first and second appellants against paragraphs 1 and 2 of the judgment of the court below is dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
  • The appeal by the third appellant against paragraph 3 of the judgment of the court below is dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.