Foodcorp (Pty) Ltd v Deputy Director General: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism: Branch Marine and Coastal Management and Others (87/2004) [2004] ZASCA 100; [2005] 1 All SA 531 (SCA); 2006 (2) SA 191 (SCA) (19 November 2004)

Foodcorp (Pty) Ltd v Deputy Director General: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism: Branch Marine and Coastal Management and Others (87/2004) [2004] ZASCA 100; [2005] 1 All SA 531 (SCA); 2006 (2) SA 191 (SCA) (19 November 2004)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the mechanical and blind application of the OMP-02 formula to allocate pelagic fishing quotas for the 2005 season resulted in irrational and unreasonable outcomes, including inexplicable and massive increases for certain companies and severe reductions for the appellant. The Minister and delegate failed to exercise their discretion as required by law, instead treating the formula as an immutable rule and ignoring the merits of individual cases. This amounted to an unlawful fettering of discretion and a breach of the right to just administrative action under section 33 of the Constitution and PAJA. The court found that a reasonable decision-maker would...

Citation
[2004] ZASCA 100
Parties
Appellant: Foodcorp (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Deputy Director General: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism: Branch Marine and Coastal Management; Respondent: The Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism; Respondent: The Holders of Rights in the Pelagic Fishing Industry
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 November 2004
Case Number
87/2004
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Appeal
Outcome
Appeal upheld; allocation decision for 2005 set aside and referred back for fresh determination.
Judges
Harms, Scott, Brand, Erasmus, Jafta
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Allocation of Fishing Quotas, Irrationality of Administrative Action, Ministerial Discretion, Marine Living Resources Act
Administrative Law Environmental Law Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Allocation of Fishing Quotas Irrationality of Administrative Action Ministerial Discretion Marine Living Resources Act

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Foodcorp (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Deputy Director General: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism: Branch Marine and Coastal Management

Respondent

The Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism

Respondent

The Holders of Rights in the Pelagic Fishing Industry

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the formula used to allocate pelagic fishing quotas for the 2005 season produced irrational and unreasonable results.
  2. 2 Whether the Minister and/or delegate unlawfully fettered discretion by applying the formula mechanically without considering individual circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the allocation decision infringed the right to just administrative action under section 33 of the Constitution and PAJA.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the mechanical and blind application of the OMP-02 formula to allocate pelagic fishing quotas for the 2005 season resulted in irrational and unreasonable outcomes, including inexplicable and massive increases for certain companies and severe reductions for the appellant. The Minister and delegate failed to exercise their discretion as required by law, instead treating the formula as an immutable rule and ignoring the merits of individual cases. This amounted to an unlawful fettering of discretion and a breach of the right to just administrative action under section 33 of the Constitution and PAJA. The court found that a reasonable decision-maker would...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; allocation decision for 2005 set aside and referred back for fresh determination.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The order of the court below is set aside and replaced with an order reviewing and setting aside the decision of the first and/or second respondent pertaining to the distribution of the total allowable catch in the pelagic fishing industry amongst successful applicants for commercial fishing for the 2005 season.