Smuts N.O. and Others v Member of the Executive Council: Eastern Cape Department of Economic Development Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Others (1199/2021) [2022] ZAECMKHC 42 (26 July 2022)

Smuts N.O. and Others v Member of the Executive Council: Eastern Cape Department of Economic Development Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Others (1199/2021) [2022] ZAECMKHC 42 (26 July 2022)

The court held that the refusal to disclose the requested permit applications and issued permits was not justified under s 34 of PAIA. The information sought relates to activities with significant environmental impact and public interest, removing them from the private domain and negating any reasonable expectation of privacy. The respondents failed to discharge the burden of proving that disclosure would be unreasonable or unlawful under PAIA or POPIA. The right of access to information, especially in environmental matters, prevails unless a specific, narrowly construed exemption applies. The court found no evidence that disclosure would facilitate criminal activity or otherwise be...

Citation
[2022] ZAECMKHC 42
Parties
Applicant: Boudewyn Homburg de Vries Smuts N.O; Applicant: Rian Arnold du Toit N.O; Applicant: Cornelius Johannes van Schalwyk N.O; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council: Eastern Cape Department of Economic Development Environmental Affairs and Tourism; Respondent: Information Officer: Eastern Cape Department of Economic Development Environmental Affairs and Tourism; Amicus Curiae: Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 July 2022
Case Number
1199/2021
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment After Application Under S 78(2) of PAIA
Outcome
Application granted; refusal of access set aside; respondents ordered to provide the requested records and pay costs.
Judges
Govindjee
Legal Topics
Promotion of Access to Information Act, Right to Privacy, Public Interest Override, Threatened or Protected Species, Permit Disclosure, Animal Welfare
Administrative Law Environmental Law Constitutional Law Promotion of Access to Information Act Right to Privacy Public Interest Override Threatened or Protected Species Permit Disclosure +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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boudewyn Homburg de Vries Smuts N.O

Applicant

Rian Arnold du Toit N.O

Applicant

Cornelius Johannes van Schalwyk N.O

Applicant

Member of the Executive Council: Eastern Cape Department of Economic Development Environmental Affairs and Tourism

Respondent

Information Officer: Eastern Cape Department of Economic Development Environmental Affairs and Tourism

Respondent

Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment After Application Under S 78(2) of PAIA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to disclose permit applications and issued permits for leopard-related activities under PAIA was lawful.
  2. 2 Whether disclosure of personal information in such permits would constitute unreasonable disclosure under s 34 of PAIA.
  3. 3 Whether the public interest override in s 46 of PAIA applies to the requested information.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the refusal to disclose the requested permit applications and issued permits was not justified under s 34 of PAIA. The information sought relates to activities with significant environmental impact and public interest, removing them from the private domain and negating any reasonable expectation of privacy. The respondents failed to discharge the burden of proving that disclosure would be unreasonable or unlawful under PAIA or POPIA. The right of access to information, especially in environmental matters, prevails unless a specific, narrowly construed exemption applies. The court found no evidence that disclosure would facilitate criminal activity or otherwise be...

Court Disposition

Application granted; refusal of access set aside; respondents ordered to provide the requested records and pay costs.

Orders

  • The second respondent's decision to refuse the Landmark Foundation Trust's PAIA request is set aside.
  • The second respondent is directed to provide the Landmark Foundation Trust with access to all applications received and permits issued by the Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs of the Eastern Cape Provincial Government to trap, kill, hunt or translocate any leopards in or from the Eastern...