Manuel v Sahara Computers (Pty) Ltd and Another (38562/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 864; [2019] 2 All SA 417 (GP); 2020 (2) SA 269 (GP) (12 December 2018)

Manuel v Sahara Computers (Pty) Ltd and Another (38562/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 864; [2019] 2 All SA 417 (GP); 2020 (2) SA 269 (GP) (12 December 2018)

The court found that the applicant had established the requirements of section 50 of PAIA, as access to the requested records was required for the exercise or protection of his right to privacy. The request did not amount to impermissible pre-litigation discovery, as the applicant sought to identify defendants and formulate a cause of action, not to assess prospects of success. The respondents' affidavits did not comply with section 55 of PAIA, as they were evasive, lacked candour, and failed to provide a full account of all steps taken to locate the records. The court held that it was entitled to go behind the affidavits and found reasonable grounds to doubt their correctness. The second...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 864
Parties
Applicant: Trevor Andrew Manuel; Respondent: Sahara Computers (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Ashu Chawla
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 December 2018
Case Number
38562/2017
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Postponement for Oral Evidence After Initial Application for Access to Information Under PAIA
Outcome
Application postponed for oral evidence; costs reserved.
Judges
S E Weiner
Legal Topics
Promotion of Access to Information Act, Right to Privacy, Pre Litigation Discovery, Definition of Private Body, Section 55 Compliance
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Promotion of Access to Information Act Right to Privacy Pre Litigation Discovery Definition of Private Body Section 55 Compliance

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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trevor Andrew Manuel

Applicant

Sahara Computers (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Ashu Chawla

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Postponement for Oral Evidence After Initial Application for Access to Information Under PAIA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established the requirements of section 50 of PAIA for access to records held by private bodies.
  2. 2 Whether the PAIA request amounts to impermissible pre-litigation discovery.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' affidavits comply with section 55 of PAIA regarding the existence and possession of the requested records.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had established the requirements of section 50 of PAIA, as access to the requested records was required for the exercise or protection of his right to privacy. The request did not amount to impermissible pre-litigation discovery, as the applicant sought to identify defendants and formulate a cause of action, not to assess prospects of success. The respondents' affidavits did not comply with section 55 of PAIA, as they were evasive, lacked candour, and failed to provide a full account of all steps taken to locate the records. The court held that it was entitled to go behind the affidavits and found reasonable grounds to doubt their correctness. The second...

Court Disposition

Application postponed for oral evidence; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The application is postponed to a date to be arranged with the Registrar for the hearing of oral evidence, in terms of Rule 6(5)(g), on the issue as to whether the respondents currently have, or have ever had, the Records in their possession.
  • Mr Stephanus Nel and Mr Ashu Chawla are to be available at the adjourned hearing for examination and/or cross-examination.