Tax Faculty NPC v South African Institution of Taxation NPC (48140/21) [2022] ZAGPPHC 839 (28 October 2022)

Tax Faculty NPC v South African Institution of Taxation NPC (48140/21) [2022] ZAGPPHC 839 (28 October 2022)

The applicant's case depended entirely on the validity of the 20 August 2018 accreditation document. The respondent provided detailed, largely unchallenged evidence that the document was drafted under threat from the applicant's CEO, was not properly authorised, and did not follow the respondent's accreditation...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 839
Parties
Applicant: The Tax Faculty NPC; Respondent: South African Institution of Taxation NPC
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 October 2022
Case Number
48140/21
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel.
Judges
de Vos
Legal Topics
Review of Administrative Action, Accreditation Dispute, Authenticity of Documents, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Review of Administrative Action Accreditation Dispute Authenticity of Documents Procedural Fairness

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Tax Faculty NPC

Applicant

South African Institution of Taxation NPC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant enjoyed accreditation with the respondent outside the terminated agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's September 2021 decision constituted administrative action subject to review.
  3. 3 Whether the accreditation document relied upon by the applicant was authentic and valid.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's case depended entirely on the validity of the 20 August 2018 accreditation document. The respondent provided detailed, largely unchallenged evidence that the document was drafted under threat from the applicant's CEO, was not properly authorised, and did not follow the respondent's accreditation procedures. The applicant failed to provide a substantive denial to these allegations. The respondent's version was therefore accepted. The court found that the applicant did not enjoy accreditation outside the terminated agreement, and the September 2021 correspondence did not constitute a reviewable administrative decision. The application for review was accordingly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, including the costs of senior counsel.