Sakeliga NPC v Auditor-General South Africa [2023] ZAGPPHC 501; 36297/2022 (30 June 2023)

Sakeliga NPC v Auditor-General South Africa [2023] ZAGPPHC 501; 36297/2022 (30 June 2023)

The court held that section 78 of PAIA is peremptory and precludes a requester from approaching the court before exhausting administrative remedies. The amended PAIA provides a complaints procedure to the Information Regulator for public bodies defined in section 1(b), such as the Auditor-General. The use of 'may' in section 77A(2) gives the requester a choice to pursue the complaint or not, but does not permit bypassing the administrative process for direct court access. The constitutional obligation to publish reports applies only to audit reports as defined in section 188 of the Constitution and section 20 of the Public Audit Act, not to management reports. The application was...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 501
Parties
Applicant: Sakeliga NPC; Respondent: Auditor-General South Africa
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 June 2023
Case Number
36297/2022
Procedural Posture
Review Application / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Swanepoel
Legal Topics
Promotion of Access to Information Act, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies, Municipal Finance Management, Constitutional Obligation to Publish, Public Accountability
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Promotion of Access to Information Act Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Municipal Finance Management Constitutional Obligation to Publish Public Accountability

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sakeliga NPC

Applicant

Auditor-General South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Sakeliga was entitled to access management reports of municipalities under PAIA before exhausting administrative remedies.
  2. 2 Whether the Auditor-General is constitutionally obliged to publish management reports.
  3. 3 Whether the application was premature in terms of section 78 of PAIA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that section 78 of PAIA is peremptory and precludes a requester from approaching the court before exhausting administrative remedies. The amended PAIA provides a complaints procedure to the Information Regulator for public bodies defined in section 1(b), such as the Auditor-General. The use of 'may' in section 77A(2) gives the requester a choice to pursue the complaint or not, but does not permit bypassing the administrative process for direct court access. The constitutional obligation to publish reports applies only to audit reports as defined in section 188 of the Constitution and section 20 of the Public Audit Act, not to management reports. The application was...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Each party shall pay its own costs.