Advanced search
Publication Cover
South African Journal on Human Rights Volume 31, 2015 - Issue 3: Special Issue on Transformation and the Courts
Submit an article Journal homepage
139
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Current Developments / Case Notes

Organs of State: An Anatomy

Meghan Finn
Pages 631-654 | Published online: 12 Nov 2018

  • L Baxter ‘“The State” and Other Basic Terms in Public Law’ (1982) 99 SALJ 212, 212.
  • This article focuses on the second AllPay judgment, AllPay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social Security Agency (No) 2) [2014] ZACC 12; 2014 (4) SA 179 (CC) (AllPay Remedy). I refer to the first judgment, AllPay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social Security Agency [2013] ZACC 42; 2014 (1) SA 604 (CC), decided less than a year earlier, as AllPay Merits.
  • See, for example, the right to be protected against unfair discrimination in s 9(3) and (4) of the Constitution.
  • F du Bois ‘Chapter 2: Sources of Law: Overview and Constitution’ in F du Bois (ed) Wille's Principles of South African Law 9 ed (2007) 39.
  • Baxter (note 1 above) 256; and L Baxter Administrative Law (1984) 99 ff. See, also, F ka Mdumbe ‘The Meaning of “Organ of State” in the South African Constitution’ (2005) 20 SA Public Law 17; and Dawnlaan Beleggings (Edms) Bpk v Johannesburg Exchange 1983 (3) SA 344 (W) 364B-D.
  • Baxter ibid 100 fn 51.
  • Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 200 of 1993 (interim Constitution) s 233(1)(ix) and s 42.
  • JR de Ville Judicial Review of Administrative Action in South Africa (2005) 41–43.
  • Claase v Transnet Bpk 1999 (3) SA 1012 (T).
  • Baloro v University of Bophuthatswana 1995 (4) SA 197 (B).
  • Directory Cost Cutters v Minister for Posts, Telecommunications and Broadcasting 1996 (3) SA 800 (T); Hoffman v South African Airways [2000] ZACC 17; 2001 (1) SA 1 (CC) para 23; and further cases cited by C Hoexter Administrative Law in South Africa 2 ed (2012) 162 fn 217.
  • S Driver & C Plasket ‘Administrative Law’ (2002) Annual Survey 881–96.
  • McKinney v The University of Guelph [1990] 3 SCR 229; and Stoffman v Vancouver General Hospital [1990] 3 SCR 483; but compare Elridge v British Columbia (Attorney General) [1997] 2 SCR 624. Other jurisdictions, including the European Court of Justice, have also had recourse to a control test, at least as a factor, usually for determining whether power is public. See, for example, Foster v British Gas [1991] 2 AC 306.
  • Cost Cutters (note 11 above) 810F-H.
  • Mistry v Interim National Medical and Dental Council of South Africa [1998] ZACC 10; 1997(7) BCLR 933 (D); and Korf v Health Professions Council of South Africa 2000 (1) SA 1171 (T).
  • Oostelike Gauteng Diensteraad v Transvaal Munisipale Pensioenfonds 1997 (8) BCLR 1066 (T) and Esack v Commission on Gender Equality (2000) 21 ILJ 467 (W).
  • S Woolman ‘Application’ in Woolman et al (eds) Constitutional Law of South Africa 2 ed (2006) 31–104.
  • C Plasket ‘The Fundamental Right to Just Administrative Action’ (2003) PhD dissertation, Rhodes University 118.
  • Mittalsteel South Africa Ltd (formerly Iscor Ltd) v Hlatshwayo [2006] ZASCA 93; 2007 (1) SA 66 (SCA) para 22.
  • Section 8(1) of the final Constitution provides that the Bill of Rights binds ‘the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and all organs of state’. This is broader than s 4(2) of the interim Constitution, which asserts that the Constitution ‘shall bind all legislative, executive and judicial organs of state at all levels of government’. Reading the definition of an organ of state in s 239 with s 8(1) of the final Constitution, the Constitutional Court found that Transnet is an organ of state in Hoffman (note 11 above) para 23.
  • Hoexter (note 11 above) 162.
  • AllPay Remedy (note 2 above) para 52. See also Minister of Education (Western Cape) v Mikro Primary School Governing Body [2005] ZASCA 66; 2006 (1) SA 1 (SCA) para 20.
  • Hoffman (note 11 above); Mittalsteel (note 19 above) para 19.
  • AllPay Remedy (note 2 above) para 52.
  • Woolman (note 17 above) 31–100.
  • Baxter (note 5 above) 100.
  • In the US, the pursuit of governmental objectives is often important in finding that a private entity is bound by certain constitutional obligations - Lebron v National Railroad Passenger Corporation [1995] USSC 11; 513 US 374 (1995) 377.
  • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v Micro Finance Regulatory Council [2006] ZACC 9; 2007 (1) SA 343 (CC) para 40.
  • See, for example, National Gambling Board v Premier of KwaZulu-Natal [2001] ZACC 8; 2002 (2) SA 715 para 19; Independent Electoral Commission v Langeberg Municipality [2001] ZACC 23; 2001 (3) SA 925 (CC) para 22; and Offit Enterprises (Pty) Ltd v Coega Development Corporation (Pty) Ltd [2010] ZACC 20; 2011 (1) SA 293 (CC) para 6.
  • Pharmaceuticals Manufacturers Association of South Africa: In re ex parte President of the Republic of South Africa [2000] ZACC 1; 2000 (2) SA 674 para 20; and AAA Investments (note 28 above) para 29.
  • AAA Investments (ibid) para 41.
  • Ibid para 45.
  • Calibre Clinical Consultants (Ptd) Ltd v National Bargaining Council for the Road Freight Industry [2010] ZASCA 94; 2010 (5) SA 457 (SCA). See also Plasket JA's separate judgment in Mobile Telephone Networks (Pty) Ltd v SMI Trading CC [2012] ZASCA 138; 2012 (6) SA 638 (SCA).
  • Ibid para 39.
  • Ibid para 46.
  • Hoexter (note 11 above) 4.
  • PAJA s 1.
  • PAJA (ibid) at s 1 defines administrative action, subject to a list of carve-outs, as: ‘any decision taken, or any failure to take a decision, by—
  • an organ of state, when—
  • exercising a power in terms of the Constitution or a provincial constitution; or
  • exercising a public power or performing a public function in terms of any legislation; or
  • a natural or juristic person, other than an organ of state, when exercising a public power or performing a public function in terms of an empowering provision, which adversely affects the rights of any person and which has a direct, external legal effect…’
  • PAJA (ibid) defines the term as meaning ‘a law, a rule of common law, customary law, or an agreement, instrument or other document in terms of which an administrative action was purportedly taken’.
  • Hoexter (note 11 above) 206.
  • Calibre Clinical Consultants (note 33 above) at para 21.
  • President of the Republic of South Africa v South African Rugby Football Union [1999] ZACC 11; 2000(1) SA 1 (CC) para 141.
  • FI Michelman ‘Constitutions and the Public/Private Divide’ in M Rosenfeld & A Sajó Oxford Handbook on Comparative Constitutional Law (2012) 310.
  • C Pateman ‘Feminist Critics of the Public/Private Dichotomy’ in C Pateman (ed) The Disorder of Women (1989) 118–40; and S Boyd Challenging the Public/Private Divide: Feminism, Law, and Public Policy (1997).
  • A Cockrell ‘Can You Paradigm? - Another Perspective on the Public Law/Private Law Divide’ (1993) Acta Juridica 227, 234.
  • KwaZulu-Natal Joint Liaison Committee v MEC Department of Education, KwaZulu-Natal [2013] ZACC 10; 2013 (4) SA 262 (CC) para 92. See also Fose v Minister of Safety and Security [1997] ZACC 6; 1997 (3) SA 786 para 57.
  • T Judt ‘What is Living and What is Dead in Social Democracy’ (2009) New York Review of Books <http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/dec/17/what-is-living-and-what-is-dead-in-social-democrac/>.
  • AC Aman Jr ‘Administrative Law for a New Century’ in M Taggart (ed) The Province of Administrative Law (1997) 116. S Sedley ‘Foreword’, also in Taggart, notes at vii: ‘a remarkable parallelism in the shrinkage of state apparatuses and the introduction of commercial enterprise into the performance of functions historically regarded as the state's’.
  • Constitution s 2.
  • M Taggart ‘The Province of Administrative Law Determined’ in Taggart (note 48 above) 6–7.
  • C Forsyth ‘Of Fig Leaves and Fairy Tales: The Ultra Vires Doctrine, the Sovereignty of Parliament and Judicial Review’ (1996) CLJ 122, 124.
  • HL Hale ‘Force and the State: A Comparison of “Political” and “Economic” Compulsion’ (1935) Columbia LR 149
  • R Unger Law in Modern Society (1976) 193.
  • Aman (note 48 above) 95.
  • A Chaskalson ‘The Past Ten Years: A Balance Sheet and Some Indicators for the Future’ (1989) 5 SAJHR) 293, 298–99.
  • Chirwa v Transnet Limited [2007] ZACC 23; 2008 (4) SA 367 (CC) para 186.
  • M & G Media Ltd v Public Protector [2009] ZAGPPHC 98; 2009 (12) BCLR 1221 (GNP) para 185.
  • This is also the case in the UK jurisdiction, prompted by the decision in R (Datafin plc) v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex parte Datafin plc [1987] QB 815.
  • Dawnlaan (note 5 above).
  • Calibre Clinical Consultants (note 33 above); Marais v Democratic Alliance [2002] 2 All SA 424 (C); Van Zyl v New National Party [2003] 3 All SA 737 (C); Max v Independent Democratics 2006 (3) SA 11 (C); Cronje v United Cricket Board of South Africa 2001 (4) SA 1361 (T); Tirfu Raiders Rugby Club v SA Rugby Union [2006] 2 All SA 549 (C); and National Horse Racing Authority of Southern Africa v Naidoo [2009] ZAKZHC 6.
  • Calibre Clinical Consultants (ibid) para 40.
  • Hoexter (note 11 above) 4.
  • See O'Regan J's judgment in AAA Investments (note 28 above) para 119. Note, however, Plasket J's point in Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union v Minister of Correctional Services 2008 (3) SA 91 (E) para 53 that broad impact only should not be determinative.
  • Ibid.
  • Ibid.
  • AAA Investments (note 28 above) para 38.
  • National Horse Racing Authority (note 60 above).
  • Cape Metropolitan Council v Metro Inspection Services Western Cape CC [2001] ZASCA 56; 2001 (3) SA 1013 (SCA).
  • AAA Investments (note 28 above).
  • Calibre Clinical Consultants (note 33 above) paras 38–40.
  • Ibid.
  • S Ellmann ‘A Constitutional Confluence: American “State Action” Law and the Application of South Africa's Socio-economic Rights Guarantees to Private Actors’ (2001) 45 New York Law School LR 21.
  • Ibid 31.
  • Section 27(1)(c).
  • AllPay Merits (note 2 above) para 1; National Treasury Budget Review (2014) 89 <http://www.treasury.gov.za/documents/national%20budget/2014/review/FullReview.pdf>.
  • C Plasket ‘Administrative Justice and Social Assistance’ (2003) 120 SALJ 494.
  • See, for example, MEC for the Department of Welfare v Kate [2006] ZASCA 49; 2006 (4) SA 478 (SCA) and the High Court judgment in the same matter ([2004] ZAECHC 25), written by Nugent JA and Froneman J respectively.
  • See, for example, the factual matrix in Permanent Secretary Department of Welfare, Eastern Cape Provincial Government v Ngxuza [2001] ZASCA 85; 2001 (4) SA 1184 (SCA).
  • Allpay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social Security Agency [2012] ZAGPPHC 185.
  • AllPay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd v CEO of the South African Social Security Agency [2013] ZASCA 29; 2013 (4) SA 557 (SCA).
  • Ibid para 105.
  • AllPay Merits (note 2 above) para 23.
  • Constitution s 172.
  • See, however, JC Sonnekus ‘Procurement Contracts and Underling Principles of the Law - No Special Dispensation for Organs of State (part 1 - the principles) (2014) 2 TSAR 320; and JC Sonnekus ‘Procurement Contracts and Underling Principles of the Law - No Special Dispensation for Organs of State (part 2 - developing the common law, consequences and remedies) (2014) 3 TSAR 536, 334.
  • South African Social Security Agency Act 9 of 2004 s 4(2)(a).
  • AllPay Merits (note 2 above) para 55.
  • Ibid para 63.
  • AllPay Remedy (note 2 above) para 64. Compare the SCA's approach in Government of the Republic of South Africa v Thabiso Chemicals (Pty) Ltd [2008] ZASCA 112; 2009 (1) SA 163 (SCA) that once a tender is awarded, the parties’ relationship is governed by the principles of contract law, and not at all by administrative law. This approach, however, seems inconsistent with the SCA's own earlier judgment in Logbro Properties CC v Bedderson NO [2002] ZASCA 135; 2003 (2) SA 460 (SCA) para 8.
  • Transnet Ltd t/a National Ports Authority v Owner of MV Snow Crystal [2008] ZASCA 27; 2008 (4) SA 111 (SCA) para 21.
  • Governing Body of the Juma Musjid Primary School v Essay NO [2011] ZACC 13; 2011 (8) BCLR 761 (CC).
  • Ibid para 58.
  • AllPay Remedy (note 2 above) para 66.
  • Ibid.
  • Ibid para 67.
  • The Constitutional Court's judgment in AllPay Remedy has already rippled into developing jurisprudence and academic commentary. In Netcare Hospitals (Pty) Ltd v KPMG Services (Pty) Ltd [2014] ZAGPJHC 186, Matojane J (the same judge who delivered the AllPay High Court judgment) looked to more than simply whether the function is public. Rather, he probed further whether there has been devolution of power away from the public entity that would ordinarily perform the function to a private entity in its stead.
  • Head of Department, Department of Education, Free State Province v Welkom High School; Head of Department, Department of Education, Free State Province v Harmony High School [2013] ZACC 25; 2014 (2) SA 228 (CC) paras 84–86.
  • Hoexter (note 11 above) 125.
  • N Friedman ‘The South Africa Common Law and the Constitution: Revisiting Horizontality’ (2014) 30 SAJHR 63, 67.
  • Du Bois (note 4 above) 40–41.
  • See, for example. Constitution s 41(3): ‘An organ of state involved in an intergovernmental dispute must make every reasonable effort to settle the dispute by means of mechanisms and procedures provided for that purposes, and must exhaust all other remedies before it approaches a court to resolve the dispute's 217: ‘When an organ of state in the national, provincial or local sphere of government…’; and s 238: ‘An executive organ of state in any sphere of government…’.
  • Langeberg (note 29 above) paras 22 & 27; and Mikro (note 22 above) para 20.
  • Section 8.
  • PAIA 11 & 50.
  • PIE s 6.
  • Section 21(1). This could have important implications in the context of ongoing litigation in the AllPay matter, including disputes around the intellectual property associated with the system for the administration of social grants.
  • See, for example, the Value-Added Tax Act 89 of 1991; the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act 53 of 2003; and the Electronic Communications Act 36 of 2005.
  • AllPay Remedy (note 2 above) para 66. See also D Brand & M Murcott ‘Administrative Law’ (2014) Juta QR April to June 2014 (2) 214.
  • AllPay Remedy (note 2 above) para 59.
  • See, for example, J van der Walt ‘Progressive Indirect Horizontal Application of the Bill of Rights: Towards a Co-operative Relation Between Common-law and Constitutional Jurisprudence’ (2001) 17 SAJHR 341; J De Waal, I Currie & G Erasmus The Bill of Rights Handbook 4 ed (2001) 51; C Roederer ‘Post-matrix Legal Reasoning: Horizontality and the Rule of Values in South African Law’ (2003) 19 SAJHR 57; D Bhana & M Pieterse ‘Towards a Reconciliation of Contract Law and Constitutional Values: Brisley and Afrox Revisited’ (2005) 122 SALJ 865; Woolman (note 17 above) 31–106; C Roederer ‘Remnants of Apartheid Common Law Justice: The Primacy of the Spirit, Purport and Objects of the Bills of Rights for Developing the Common Law and Bringing Horizontal Rights to Fruition’ (2013) 29 SAJHR) 219; D Bhana ‘The Horizontal Application of the Bill of Rights: A Reconciliation of Sections 8 and 39 of the Constitution’ (2013) 29 SAJHR 351; and Friedman (note 98 above). See also D Bilchitz ‘Corporate Law and the Constitution: Towards Binding Human Rights Responsibilities for Corporations’ (2008) 125 SALJ 754; and DM Chirwa ‘In Search of Philosophical Justifications and Suitable Models for the Horizontal Application of Human Rights’ (2008) 8 African Human Rights LJ 294.
  • S Woolman ‘The Amazing, Vanishing Bill of Rights’ (2007) 124 SALJ 162.
  • Du Plessis v De Klerk [1996] ZACC 10; 1996 (3) SA 850 (CC).
  • Bilchitz (note 109 above) 775.
  • Khumalo v Holomisa [2002] ZACC 12; 2002 (5) SA 401 para 33; and O'Regan J's judgment in NM V Smith [2007] ZACC 6; 2007 (5) SA 250 (CC).
  • For recent examples of this, see Loureiro v iMvula Quality Protection (Pty) Ltd [2014] ZACC 4; 2014 (3) SA 394 (CC) para 34; Botha v Rich NO [2014] ZACC 11; 2014 (4) SA 124 (CC) para 28; Mayelane v Ngwenyama [2013] ZACC 14; 2013 (4) SA 415 (CC); and Yacoob J's minority judgment in Everfresh Market Viriginia (Pty) Ltd v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd [2011] ZACC 30; 2012 (1) SA 256 (CC) paras 31–37.
  • Juma Musjid (note 90 above) para 58. The matter related to the right to education in an application for the eviction of a public school brought by the private landowner.
  • Woolman (note 17 above) 31–106.
  • AAA Investments (note 28 above) para 29.
  • M Loughlin Foundations of Public Law (2010) 183.
  • JWF Allison ‘Theoretical and Institutional Underpinnings of a Separate Administrative Law’ in Taggart (note 48 above) 71, 89.
  • H Corder ‘Administrative Justice: A Cornerstone of South Africa's Democracy’ (1998) 14 SAJHR 38, 40.
  • L Baxter Administrative Law (1994) second impression 94. See also Holeni v Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa [2009] ZASCA 9; 2009 (4) SA 437 (SCA) para 11.
  • Aman (note 48 above) 100.
  • S v Tembani [2006] ZASCA 123; 2007 (1) SACR 355 (SCA) para 27.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.