PG Castel NO v Metal & Allied Workers Union (328/85) [1987] ZASCA 72 (25 August 1987)

PG Castel NO v Metal & Allied Workers Union (328/85) [1987] ZASCA 72 (25 August 1987)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the audi alteram partem rule did not apply to the respondent's refusal to grant permission for the open air gathering under section 46(3) of the Internal Security Act. The applicant had no right to hold the gathering without authority, and no right to receive permission. The refusal did not affect any right or entail legal consequences for the applicant, and thus the principle in Laubscher's case was applicable. The analogy to trading licences was rejected, as the applicant for authority under section 46(3) is not entitled to permission unless the Minister or magistrate decides to lift the prohibition. The respondent's decision was made honestly, for...

Citation
[1987] ZASCA 72
Parties
Appellant: PG Castel NO; Respondent: Metal & Allied Workers' Union
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 August 1987
Case Number
328/85
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Decision of the Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal upheld. The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with dismissal of the application with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Jansen, Viljoen, Hefer, Smalberger, Vivier
Legal Topics
Audi Alteram Partem, Ministerial Discretion, Judicial Review, Internal Security Act, Legitimate Expectation
Administrative Law Audi Alteram Partem Ministerial Discretion Judicial Review Internal Security Act Legitimate Expectation

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 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PG Castel NO

Appellant

Metal & Allied Workers' Union

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Decision of the Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the audi alteram partem rule applied to the respondent's refusal to grant permission for an open air gathering under section 46(3) of the Internal Security Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent acted mala fide or in fraudem legis in refusing permission.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's decision was unreasonable or based on irrelevant considerations.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the audi alteram partem rule did not apply to the respondent's refusal to grant permission for the open air gathering under section 46(3) of the Internal Security Act. The applicant had no right to hold the gathering without authority, and no right to receive permission. The refusal did not affect any right or entail legal consequences for the applicant, and thus the principle in Laubscher's case was applicable. The analogy to trading licences was rejected, as the applicant for authority under section 46(3) is not entitled to permission unless the Minister or magistrate decides to lift the prohibition. The respondent's decision was made honestly, for...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with dismissal of the application with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside.