Van Zyl (EDMS) Beperk (t/a ZZ2) and Others v Minister of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries and Others (45144/2017) [2020] ZAGPPHC 283 (24 June 2020)

Van Zyl (EDMS) Beperk (t/a ZZ2) and Others v Minister of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries and Others (45144/2017) [2020] ZAGPPHC 283 (24 June 2020)

The court found that the application for leave to appeal raised important constitutional and administrative law issues, including the interpretation of statutory provisions and their consistency with the Rule of Law and property rights under the Constitution. The judge was persuaded that there was a reasonable prospect of success on appeal and that the matter involved complex factual and legal questions warranting consideration by the Supreme Court of Appeal. The application for leave to appeal was therefore granted, with costs to be costs in the appeal.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 283
Parties
Applicant: Bertie Van Zyl (EDMS) Beperk (T/A ZZ2); Applicant: Tomato Producers’ Organisation; Applicant: Noordelike Uie Komitee; Applicant: Fresh Produce Importers’ Association NPC; Respondent: Minister of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries; Respondent: Production Control for Agriculture; Respondent: Leaf Services (Pty) Ltd Nejamogul Technologies; Respondent: And Agric Services; Respondent: Agency for Food Safety (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Impumelelo Agribusiness Solutions (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Perishable Products Export Control Board; Respondent: South African Meat Industry Company
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 June 2020
Case Number
45144/2017
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal; costs to be costs in the appeal.
Judges
S A M Baqwa
Legal Topics
Rule of Law, Arbitrary Deprivation of Property, Internal Appeal Exhaustion, Review of Administrative Action, Inspection Fees, Constitutional Invalidity
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Rule of Law Arbitrary Deprivation of Property Internal Appeal Exhaustion Review of Administrative Action Inspection Fees Constitutional Invalidity

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bertie Van Zyl (EDMS) Beperk (T/A ZZ2)

Applicant

Tomato Producers’ Organisation

Applicant

Noordelike Uie Komitee

Applicant

Fresh Produce Importers’ Association NPC

Applicant

Minister of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries

Respondent

Production Control for Agriculture

Respondent

Leaf Services (Pty) Ltd Nejamogul Technologies

Respondent

And Agric Services

Respondent

Agency for Food Safety (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Impumelelo Agribusiness Solutions (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Perishable Products Export Control Board

Respondent

South African Meat Industry Company

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 3(1A)(b)(ii) read with Section 3A(4) of the Agricultural Product Standards Act is inconsistent with the Rule of Law and/or Section 195(3) of the Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether the legislative provisions permit arbitrary deprivation of property contrary to Section 25(1) of the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicants are precluded from pursuing a review until internal remedies have been exhausted under PAJA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for leave to appeal raised important constitutional and administrative law issues, including the interpretation of statutory provisions and their consistency with the Rule of Law and property rights under the Constitution. The judge was persuaded that there was a reasonable prospect of success on appeal and that the matter involved complex factual and legal questions warranting consideration by the Supreme Court of Appeal. The application for leave to appeal was therefore granted, with costs to be costs in the appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal; costs to be costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal in terms of Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
  • Costs to be costs in the appeal.