LL.M. / Please refer to full text to view abstract

LL.M. / Please refer to full text to view abstract

LL.D. / Please refer to full text to view abstract

Thesis (LLM)--University of Stellenbosch, 2000. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: South African administrative law has undergone drastic changes since the inception of the interim Constitution, which elevated 'administrative justice' to a constitutionally entrenched fundamental right in section 24. Although the successor of this section, the 'must administrative action' clause in section 33 FC, did not enter into force on 5 February 1996 with the rest of the Constitution, it required more changes to administrative law in the form of legislation, when read together with item 23 Schedule 6 FC. The two most significant factors that brought about change were the passage of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 in terms of section 33 FC read with item 23 Schedule 6, and the ruling of the Constitutional Court in the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers case. This study shows that in order to give effect to the requirements of the Constitution, the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act and the ruling of the Constitutional Court, administrative law must be reorganised. When this happens, section 33 FC, which gives force to the common law that informs administrative law, becomes the starting point in administrative law matters. Although the Act exists under the Constitution and parallel to the common law, Parliament foresees that the Act and the common law will in time become one system of law. It further provides for the direct application of the Constitution by those who cannot find a remedy in the Act. The study further shows that, as not all the common law constitutional principles that previously provided the common law grounds for review of administrative action have been taken up by the Constitution, the possibility exists that some of the common law grounds do not continue to be relevant to the review of administrative action. The Act, which articulates the right to 'just administrative action' as viewed by government, contains most of the common law grounds for review. It is therefore argued that, after the Act has entered into force, the continued relevance of those that have been omitted from the Act, needs to be determined before they can be used through the direct application of section 33 FC. To test for relevance, the requirements in section 33(1) Fe, 'lawfulness', reasonableness' and 'procedural fairness', are therefore interpreted in the study in order to determine which statutory grounds relate to each and which common law grounds have been omitted from the Act. The conclusion reached is that grounds available for the review of administrative action consist of the statutory grounds for review together with the omitted common law grounds that continue to be relevant to the judicial review of administrative action. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Sedert die inwerkingtreding van die interim Grondwet, wat 'administratiewe gerigtigheid' tot 'n grondwetlike reg verhef het in artikel 24, het die Suid-Afrikaanse administratiefreg drastiese veranderinge ondergaan. Al het die reg op 'n 'regverdige administratiewe optrede' in artikel33 FG nie op 5 Februarie 1996 in werking getree saam met die res van die Grondwet nie, het die klousule nog veranderinge, in die vorm van wetgewing, vereis. Die twee belangrikste faktore wat veranderinge to gevolg gehad het, was die aanneming van die Wet op die Bevordering van Administratiewe Geregtigheid, Wet 3 van 2000, en die beslissing van die Konstitusionele Hof in die Pharmaceutical Manufacturers-saak. Hierdie studie bevind dat die administratiefreg heringedeel sal moet word om effek te gee aan die vereistes van die Grondwet, die Wet op die Bevordering van Administratiewe Geregtigheid en die beslissing van die Konstitutionele Hof. As dit plaasvind, word artikel 33 FG, wat aan die gemenereg krag verleën, die beginpunt in administratiefregtelike aangeleenthede. Al bestaan die Wet onder die Grondwet en parallel tot die gemenereg, voorsien die regering dat die Wet en die gemenereg in die toekoms een stelsel word. Daar word verder voorsiening gemaak vir die direkte toegpassing van artikel33 deur persone wat nie 'n remedie in die Wet kan vind nie. Die studie bevind verder dat, omdat al die gemeenregtelike konstitusionele beginsels wat voorheen die gronde van hersiening verskaf het nie in die Grondwet opgeneem is nie, die moontlikheid bestaan dat sekere van die gemeenregtelike gronde nie relevant bly vir die hersiening van administratiewe handelinge nie. Die Wet, wat die reg op 'n '[r]egverdige administratiewe optrede' verwoord soos dit gesien word deur die regering, bevat meeste van die gemeenregtelike gronde van hersiening. Daarom word daar geargumenteer dat die voortgesette relevantheid van die gemeenregtelike gronde van hersiening wat uitgelaat is uit die Wet eers bepaal moet word voordat hulle gebruik kan word deur die direkte toepassing van artikel 33 nadat die Wet in werking getree het. Om te toets vir relevantheid, moet die vereistes in artikel 33 FG, 'regmatigheid', 'redelikheid' en 'prosedurele billikheid' geïnterpreteer word om te bepaal watter statutêre gronde onder elk klassifiseer en watter gemmenregtelike gronde uitgelaat is uit die Wet. Die gevolgtrekking is dat die gronde van hersiening beskikbaar vir die hersiening van administratiewe handelinge bestaan uit statutêre gronde van hersiening sowel as die weggelate gemeenregtelike gronde van hersiening wat relevant bly vir die judisiële hersiening van administratiewe handelinge.

Thesis (LLM) --University of Limpopo, 2007 / Refer to document

LL.D. / Due to a democratic policy of transparency, responsibility and accountability, government organisations in the 'new' South Africa will have to properly and thoroughly plan and manage all facets of the national economy. Planning of land rights, - development and environmental conservation is necessary to manage the housing shortage, industrial and agricultural development and the principles of the Development Facilitation Act and the reconstruction and development programme. Town-, regional- and environmental conservation planning (especially managing of natural resources) is of vital importance. The role of the community, public participation, opinions and input is vital and desirable. New legislation in terms of town- and regional planning matters is however not completely in place. Administrative law, particularly the administrative justice stipulation in the constitution, plays an important and integral role in terms of the duties of town planning tribunals, developmental facilitation tribunals, town councils, ministers, provincial premiers and members of executive committees' powers and functions. The relevant legislation in Gauteng Province is the Development Facilitation Act, Town planning and Townships Ordinance (Tvl), the Local Government Transition Act,' the Gauteng Removal of Restrictions Act, 2 town planning schemes and the Environmental Conservation Act. This list is not a numerus clausus and will be discussed further below. The basis and practical area of application of all this legislation is administrative law. The administrative justice stipulation in the Constitution plays a vital and essential role in the implementation and execution of such legislation.

Prior to the current constitutional dispensation, the development of South African administrative law was restricted by the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty. Even in that comparatively 'hostile' environment, review for unreasonableness developed as an aspect of judicial review, and was applied as a check on the exercise of administrative power in certain circumstances. The principle of proportionality as an aspect of review for unreasonableness also developed during this period. With the advent of the new Constitutional dispensation, the framework within which administrative law in South Africa operates became one governed by Constitutional Supremacy. The Rights to Just Administrative Action, including a right to reasonable administrative action, were entrenched in the Constitution. Review for unreasonableness is an important aspect of administrative law in the present Constitutional dispensation as the mechanism for protecting the Constitutional right to reasonable administrative action. Proportionality is an important principle underlying the Bill of Rights as a whole, and it is an important aspect of the right to reasonable administrative action, and of review for unreasonableness. In early 2000, the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act No. 3 of 2000 ("the PAJA"), was passed by Parliament in fulfillment of the Constitutional requirement to pass legislation to give effect to the constitutional rights to Just Administrative Action. This thesis examines whether or not review for unreasonableness, and proportionality as an aspect of review for unreasonableness, have been meaningfully incorporated in the PAJA, and if they have not been, what potential remedies there might be. This is done by examining the basis of judicial review both before and under the current constitutional dispensation; defining unreasonableness, and proportionality; examining the content of the right to administrative action which is "justifiable in relation to the reasons given" in section 24(d) of the Interim Constitution and the right to reasonable administrative action in terms of section 33(1) of the Final Constitution; examining the application of review for unreasonableness and proportionality by the Courts both before and under the current constitutional dispensation; examining the content of judicial review incorporated in the PAJA and the drafting history of section 6(2) of the PAJA which relates to review for unreasonableness; drawing conclusions regarding whether or not review for unreasonableness and proportionality were meaningfully incorporated in the PAJA; and finally making recommendations with regard to review for unreasonableness and proportionality in light of the provisions of the PAJA.

South Africa’s employment law has undergone more frequent and dynamic changes than any area of the law, in recent years. The ability of employers and employees to regulate their respective rights and duties vis-à-vis each other by independent agreement has been progressively whittled down by statutory intervention. In so limiting the capacity of parties to the employment relationship to regulate the nature of their relationship, South Africa has followed development in Western industrialised nations. Against this background, the drafters of the Labour Relations Act1 (LRA), as amended, proposed a comprehensive framework of law governing the collective relations between employers and trade unions in all sectors of the economy. The LRA2 created a specialised set of forums and tribunals to deal with labour and employment related matters. It established Bargaining Councils, the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), the Labour Court (LC) and the Labour Appeal Court (LAC). It also created procedures designed to accomplish the objective of simple, inexpensive and accessible resolution of labour disputes. In redesigning labour law, the legislature decided that some disputes between employers and employees should be dealt with by arbitrators and others by judges. It is this distinction that resulted in the creation of the CCMA and the Labour Court to perform arbitration and adjudication respectively. The result of adjudication is generally subject to appeal to a higher court. The result of arbitration is generally subject to review. Arbitration was given statutory recognition in South Africa by the Arbitration Act3. That Act provides a framework within which parties in dispute may if they wish appoint their own “judge” and supply him or her with their terms of reference tailored to their needs. With the foregoing in mind, the purpose of this work is the provision of a selection of landmark cases that dealt with the review function of CCMA awards. This selection 1 Act 66 of 1995 as amended comprises of landmark judgments of the different courts of the land. The study uses, as it departure point, legislative framework to elicit the extent to which review is extended to the litigants. Apart from looking at the legislative provisions towards review grounds, reference is made to specific landmark judgments that have an effect on this subject in order to provide a comprehensive and explicit picture of how CCMA arbitration awards may be taken on review. This study focuses on substantive law developed by the Labour Court, High Court, Supreme Court of Appeal and finally the Constitutional Court. This is informed by the very nature and scope of the study because any concentration on procedural and evidentiary aspects of review could lead to failure to achieve the objectives of the study. It looks at specific South African case law, judgments of the courts and the jurisprudence in the field of employment law so that the reader is presented with a clearer picture of recent developments in addressing review of arbitration awards. The concluding remarks are drawn from a variety of approaches used by the authorities in the field of employment law in dealing with review of CCMA arbitration awards and issues for further research are highlighted.

Thesis (LLM.) -- University of Limpopo, 2007 / Refer to document

This study evaluates the court's approach towards the interpretation of administrative justice with specific reference to Roman v Williams 1997(2) SACR 754(C). Section 33 of the Constitution Act 108 of 1996 guarantees the right to administration justice. The elements of this right are lawfulness, reasonableness and procedurally fairness. Our courts are bound constitutionally to promote, develop, advance and protect the fundamental rights. This study provides the most effective approach towards the development of the fundamental right in our democratic society where the Bill of Rights binds legislature, executive and judiciary. / Administrative Law / LL.M. (Administrative Law)