PFE International Inc (BVI) and Others v Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Ltd (CCT 129/11) [2012] ZACC 21; 2013 (1) SA 1 (CC); 2013 (1) BCLR 55 (CC) (27 September 2012)
The Constitutional Court held that section 7(1) of PAIA excludes its application where access to information is sought for the purposes of civil or criminal proceedings after those proceedings have commenced, and where access is provided for in another law. Rule 38(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court constitutes such 'other law', as it enables parties to obtain documents through a subpoena duces tecum at any stage of the procedure, not only after a trial date is set. The Court rejected a literal interpretation of Rule 38(1) and endorsed a purposive approach that promotes access to information and the effective administration of justice. The Court found that allowing PAIA to apply in parallel...
- Citation
- [2012] ZACC 21
- Parties
- Applicant: PFE International Inc (BVI); Applicant: PFE International Inc (Liberia); Applicant: Van Dyck Carpets (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Mehdy Zarrebini; Applicant: Mehran Zarrebini; Respondent: Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Ltd
- Court
- Constitutional Court
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 27 September 2012
- Case Number
- CCT 129/11
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court After Supreme Court of Appeal Reversed High Court Order.
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
- Judges
- Jafta, Mogoeng, Moseneke, Cameron, Froneman, Khampepe, Skweyiya, Van der Westhuizen
- Legal Topics
- Right of Access to Information, Promotion of Access to Information Act, Court Rules and Discovery, Fiduciary Duty, Interpretation of Legislation
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
PFE International Inc (BVI)
Applicant
PFE International Inc (Liberia)
Applicant
Van Dyck Carpets (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Mehdy Zarrebini
Applicant
Mehran Zarrebini
Applicant
Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court After Supreme Court of Appeal Reversed High Court Order.
Legal Issues
- 1 Does the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) apply to requests for information made after the commencement of civil proceedings?
- 2 Does Rule 38(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court constitute 'other law' as contemplated in section 7(1)(c) of PAIA, thereby excluding PAIA's application?
- 3 Should leave to appeal be granted in a matter involving constitutional rights and divergent lower court decisions?
Ratio Decidendi
The Constitutional Court held that section 7(1) of PAIA excludes its application where access to information is sought for the purposes of civil or criminal proceedings after those proceedings have commenced, and where access is provided for in another law. Rule 38(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court constitutes such 'other law', as it enables parties to obtain documents through a subpoena duces tecum at any stage of the procedure, not only after a trial date is set. The Court rejected a literal interpretation of Rule 38(1) and endorsed a purposive approach that promotes access to information and the effective administration of justice. The Court found that allowing PAIA to apply in parallel...
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Orders
- Leave to appeal is granted.
- The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment