South Africa Case Law

Ibex RSA Holdco Limited and Another v Tiso Blackstar Group (Pty) Ltd and Others

Ibex RSA Holdco Limited and Another v Tiso Blackstar Group (Pty) Ltd and Others [2024] ZASCA 166; 2025 (2) SA 408 (SCA) (4 December 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

862/2022

Judges

Zondi, Schippers, Hughes, Meyer, Tlaletsi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the forensic investigation report was not protected by legal professional privilege or litigation privilege under section 67 of PAIA, as its dominant purpose was to investigate accounting irregularities and enable Steinhoff to produce financial statements, not to obtain legal advice or prepare for litigation. The evidence did not support the assertion that litigation was pending or contemplated at the time of commissioning the report. Even if privilege existed, it was waived by Steinhoff's publication of the overview, which disclosed the substance and key…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Legal Professional Privilege
• Public Interest Override
• Corporate Fraud
• Disclosure Of Evidence
• Waiver Of Privilege

Caga and Others v Transnet SOC Ltd and Another (1257/2021)

Caga and Others v Transnet SOC Ltd and Another (1257/2021) [2024] ZAECQBHC 26 (22 March 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

1257/2021

Judge

Botha

The court found that section 7(1) of PAIA does not apply to requests for records after proceedings have been concluded, as such requests cannot disrupt finalised proceedings. Transnet failed to discharge the onus of proving that the Mavana Report was produced in its capacity as a private body or that the confidentiality exemption under section 37(1)(a) of PAIA applied. The evidence provided was insufficient to establish a real risk of breach of confidence actionable by the third party. The applicants complied with procedural requirements and, as the report was held by a public body, section 1…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Public Body Vs Private Body
• Confidential Information Exemption
• Public Interest Override
• Dismissal Of Employees

Thompson v Information Officer: Department of Defence and Military Veterans and Another (8090/2020)

Thompson v Information Officer: Department of Defence and Military Veterans and Another (8090/2020) [2024] ZAWCHC 58 (22 February 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

8090/2020

Judge

Mangcu-Lockwood

The respondents failed to discharge the evidentiary burden required under PAIA to justify refusal of access to the SANDF Board of Inquiry report. Their reliance on statutory exemptions was vague and unsupported by concrete evidence regarding the nature of the military equipment, strategies, or diplomatic relations at risk. The court found that the information provided was insufficient to assess whether the exemptions under sections 34 and 41 applied. Given the constraints on evidence and the public interest in disclosure, the court exercised its discretion under section 80 of PAIA to order a…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Judicial Peek
• Military Inquiry
• Public Interest Override
• Burden Of Proof

Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse NPC v South African National Roads Agency Ltd and Others (32095/2020)

Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse NPC v South African National Roads Agency Ltd and Others (32095/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 38 (25 January 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

32095/2020

Judge

Millar

High Court refused OUTA’s leave to appeal in a PAIA dispute, holding there were no reasonable prospects of success and no basis for the public-interest override.

• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Public Interest Override
• Leave To Appeal
• Onus Of Proof
• Promotion-of-access-to-information
• Public-interest-override

Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse NPC v South African National Roads Agency Ltd and Others (32095/2020)

Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse NPC v South African National Roads Agency Ltd and Others (32095/2020) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1903 (14 November 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

32095/2020

Judge

Millar

The court found that SANRAL is not obliged under PAIA to furnish documents it does not possess, nor to obtain private contracts between N3TC and third parties. For documents in SANRAL's possession, N3TC's objection to disclosure on grounds of confidentiality is supported by section 36(1)(b) and (c) of PAIA, which mandates refusal if disclosure would harm commercial or financial interests or prejudice contractual negotiations. OUTA failed to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that disclosure would reveal evidence of a substantial contravention of law or that the public interest in dis…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Public Interest Override
• Confidentiality Of Third Party Information
• Condonation
• Burden Of Proof
• Costs Order

Health Justice Initiative v Minister of Health and Another (10009/22)

Health Justice Initiative v Minister of Health and Another (10009/22) [2023] ZAGPPHC 689 (17 August 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

10009/22

Judge

Millar

The court found that the respondents failed to provide adequate, evidence-based reasons for refusing access to the requested records. Blanket reliance on confidentiality clauses was rejected, as government entities are constitutionally obliged to act transparently and accountably, and cannot contract out of these obligations. The respondents did not demonstrate any real or probable harm to future commercial interests or negotiations. The argument of non-joinder was dismissed as self-serving, since the respondents themselves withheld the identities of third parties. The court held that the pub…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Public Procurement Transparency
• Confidentiality Clauses
• Public Interest Override
• Constitutional Accountability
• Government Contracts

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)

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)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

1199/2021

Judge

Govindjee

The High Court held that refusal of access to leopard permit applications and permits under PAIA was unjustified and ordered disclosure.

• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Right To Privacy
• Public Interest Override
• Threatened Or Protected Species
• Permit Disclosure
• Animal Welfare

Arena Holdings (Pty) Ltd t/a Financial Mail and Others v South African Revenue Services and Others (88359/2019)

Arena Holdings (Pty) Ltd t/a Financial Mail and Others v South African Revenue Services and Others (88359/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 779; 2022 (2) SA 485 (GP); 84 SATC 153 (16 November 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

88359/2019

Judge

N Davis

The High Court held that blanket taxpayer secrecy rules unjustifiably limit access to information and ordered a public-interest override for tax records.

• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Taxpayer Confidentiality
• Public Interest Override
• Constitutional Invalidity
• Reading In Remedy

Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse NPC v Services Sector Education Training Authority and Another (36248/2019)

Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse NPC v Services Sector Education Training Authority and Another (36248/2019) [2021] ZAGPJHC 626 (4 November 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

36248/2019

Judge

Senyatsi ML

The High Court set aside SETA’s refusal to release tender records to OUTA under PAIA and ordered disclosure, finding no adequate basis for refusal.

• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Public Tender Disclosure
• Burden Of Proof In Paia
• Public Interest Override
• Paia
• Access-to-information

Panday v University of KwaZulu-Natal and Others (D8171/2019)

Panday v University of KwaZulu-Natal and Others (D8171/2019) [2021] ZAKZDHC 1 (8 January 2021)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D8171/2019

Judge

M R Chetty

The court held that the applicant, as a private citizen, is entitled to request information from a public body under PAIA without needing to demonstrate a connection to the university or a specific purpose. The university's refusal based on distrust, lack of affiliation, or alleged frivolousness was found to be irrelevant under the Act. The university failed to discharge its evidential burden to justify refusal under the statutory exemptions claimed, particularly regarding the safety of individuals and privileged information. The court found that the requested information regarding the durati…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Public Body Definition
• Grounds For Refusal Of Access
• Severability And Redaction
• Public Interest Override