Abstract:
This mini-dissertation deals with the contribution of Joseph and others v City of Johannesburg and others 2010 (4) SA 55 (CC), hereafter referred to as Joseph, to the development of procedural fairness in the Republic of South Africa.
Section 33 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, provides for fair administrative action and has also been given content and meaning by the promulgation of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000, hereafter referred to as PAJA. Section 3(1) of PAJA requires procedural fairness whenever administrative action materially and adversely affects a right or legitimate expectation of any person.
In this dissertation I explore what is meant by procedural fairness. I do so by explaining the importance of procedural fairness in the South African legal system and its application. I examine the Joseph case by focusing mainly on the facts, court decision and also on the reasoning behind the decision. I examine the content of procedural fairness and its application as the main rules that were raised in Joseph and investigate how they have developed procedural fairness. I also examine the right of individuals to be given adequate notice and to be afforded the opportunity to make representations with respect to decisions that materially and adversely affect their rights. I further deal with the sections of the Electricity By-law which were declared unconstitutional and whether the Debt and Credit Control By-laws can be read consistently with PAJA. I analyse the duty imposed on the Municipality by the decision of the court and examine the success of Joseph s case and other relevant cases in the further development of procedural fairness in South African administrative law. I conclude by summarising on the new jurisprudence that the court has established. Finally, I consider the future of procedural fairness after Joseph.
