About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2014
>>
[2014] ZAGPPHC 240
|
|
Van der Merwe and Another v National Lotteries Board (38293/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 240 (11 April 2014)
IN
THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT PRETORIA
(REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA)
CASE
NO. 38293/2012
DATE:
11 APRIL 2014
REPORTABLE
NOT
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES
In
the matter between:
JEANNE
VAN DER MERWE 1
st
Applicant
MEDIA
24 LIMITED 2
nd
Applicant
and
THE
NATIONAL LOTTERIES BOARD Respondent
CORAM:
EBERSOHN AJ
HEARD
ON 5 JUNE 2013
JUDGMENT
HANDED DOWN ON 11 APRIL 2014
JUDGMENT
EBERSOHN
AJ.
[1]
The first applicant is a journalist in the employ of Media 24
Investigations, a unit within the second applicant. The second
applicant is a company.
[2]
The respondent is the National Lotteries Board (the “NLB”)
established in terms of
section 2
of the
Lotteries Act, No. 57 of
1997
.
[3]
The prayers in the notice of motion read as follows:
“
1.
Declaring that the conduct and decision of the Respondent refusing
the Applicants’ requests for access to information,
dated 6
January 2012, 9 January 2012, 7 February 2012 and 15 February 2012,
is in conflict with the provisions of the Promotion
of Access to
Information to Access to Information Act, 2 of 2000 (“PAIA”)
and therefore unlawful.
2. Setting aside the
decisions of the Respondent referred to in paragraph 1 above.
3. Directing the
Respondent to make the records requested available to the Applicants
with immediate affect.
4. Directing the
Respondent to pay the costs of this application.
5. Further and/or
alternative relief.”
[4]
It is an application for relief in terms of section 78(2) read with
section 82 of PAIA, and is related to an alleged refusal
of access to
records requested by the applicants from the respondent.
Specifically, this application concerns requests for details
of all
staff employed by the NLB and certain other bodies, who have faced
disciplinary action and particulars thereof; minutes
of meetings of
the NLB and of meetings held by the Distributing Agencies with
certain other bodies during 2010 and 2011; the funding
proposals and
accounting of the spending of lottery money submitted with regard to
awards made with regard to the Soccer World
Cup during the 2010/2011
financial year; all requests for funding and the amounts requested by
the African National Congress relating
to its centenary celebrations
in 2012 and records which evidence support and expenditure on
cultural programmes relating to the
centenary celebratons.
[5]
A further request was submitted seeking all legal opinions obtained
with regard to applications and appeals of decision made
by the
Distributing Agencies for Arts, Culture, and National Heritage,
Charity, Sport and Recreation and “Miscellaneous"
in 2010
and 2011. The applicants abandoned this attempt.
[6]
The applicants allege that the respondent failed to respond timeously
or in some instances to respond at all, to the requests
and the
applicant therefore deemed the requests to have been refused in
accordance with section 27 of PAIA and filed internal appeals
in
relation to each of the requests. No response as is required by
section 77(3) of PAIA to any of the internal appeals was allegedly
received and it was deemed in terms of section 77(7) of PAIA to have
been refused and the applicants approached the court in terms
of
section 78 read with section 82 of PAIA. 'What is clear is that the
issues between the parties have now chrystalised and the
crisp issues
for determination by this court are as follows:
a) How records may
validly be redacted under PAIA and what PAIA requires of the party
effecting the redaction;
b) Whether the
Respondent’s redaction of the minutes was justified by the
reasons provided in the answering affidavit?
[7]
The applicants specifically seek a declaration from this court that
the conduct of the respondent in failing to give effect
to the
provisions of PAIA is unlawful and therefore set it aside and an
order be granted compelling the respondent to make the
requested
records available to the applicants with immediate effect.
[8]
Before dealing with the exact requirements of redaction under the
Act, PAIA should first be analysed and it be dealt with how
it
operates in relation to public bodies such as the respondent.
[9]
Section 32(1) of the Constitution entrenches the right of access to
information. It provides as follows:
"Everyone
has the right of access to -
(a)
any information held by the state; and
(b)
any information that is held by another person and that is required
for the exercise or protection of any rights. ”
[10]
The Supreme Court of Appeal (“the SCA”) has recently
articulated the purpose of the right of access to information
in the
following terms:
“
Open
and transparent government and a free flow of information concerning
the affairs of the state is the lifeblood of democracy.
That is why
the Bill of Rights guarantees to everyone the right of access to ‘any
information that is held by the state’,
of which Ngcobo J said
the following in Brummer v Minister for Social Development:
‘
The
importance of this right ... in a country which is founded on values
of accountability, responsiveness and openness, cannot
be gainsaid.
To give effect to these founding values, the public must have access
to information held by the State. Indeed one
of the basic values and
principles governing public administration is transparency. And the
Constitution demands that transparency
‘must be fostered by
providing the public with timely, accessible and accurate
information.
The
President of RSA v M & G Media (570/10)
[2010] ZASCA 177
(14
December 2010) at para 1).
[11]
As Currie and Klaaren note, the entrenchment of this right in the
Constitution must be seen against the obsession with secrecy.
[12]
Section 32 of the Constitution marks a decisive break with the past,
by entitling everyone to information held by the state.
Our courts
have held that the effect of the right of access to information is
that public authorities are no longer permitted to
"play possum"
with members of the public where the rights of the latter are at
stake. The purpose of the right of access
to information
"is
to subordinate the organs of State
...
to a
new regimen
of openness and fair dealing with the public
.”
Currie
& Klaaren The Commentary on the Promotion of Access to
Information Act (2002) at p 2
Van
Niekerk v Pretoria City Council
1997 (3) SA 839
(T) at 850C
-
cited with
approval in MEC for Roads and Public Works, Eastern Cape, and Another
v Intertrade Two (Pty) Ltd
2006 (5) SA 1
(SCA) at para 21
The
President of RSA v M & G Media (570/10)
[2010] ZASCA 177
(14
December 2010) at paras 9-11
[13]
Section 32(2) of the Constitution requires that national legislation
be enacted to give effect to the right of access to information.
PAIA
is the national legislation enacted by Parliament in this regard.
[14]
The preamble to PAIA states that its purpose is to -
“
foster
a culture of transparency and accountability in public and private
bodies by giving effect to the right of access to information;
and
actively promote a society in which the people of South Africa have
effective access to information to enable them to more
fully exercise
and protect all of their rights
”
[15]
Section 9 of PAIA deals comprehensively with the objects of the Act.
They are, amongst others,
“
to
give effect to the constitutional right of access to
.
. .
any
information held by the State".
[16]
PAIA deals with information held by public bodies differently from
information held by private bodies. For public bodies, such
as the
NLB, the requester does not need to explain why it seeks the
information, let alone why it requires it for the exercise
of its
rights. Rather, section 11(1) of PAIA makes clear that a requester is
entitled to the information requested from a public
body as long as
it has complied with the procedural requirements in PAIA and as long
as none of the grounds of refusal are applicable.
“
A
requester must be given access to a record of a public body if the
requester complies with the relevant procedural requirements
and
access to that record is not refused on any of the grounds set out in
Chapter 4 of Part 2 of the Act.
”
[17]
The importance of access to information held by the state as a means
to secure accountability and transparency justifies the
approach
adopted in section 32(1)(a) of the Bill of Rights and in PAIA:
namely, that unless one of the specifically enumerated
grounds of
refusal obtains, citizens are entitled to information held by the
state as a matter of right. This is so regardless
of the reasons for
which access is sought and regardless of what the organ of state
believes those reasons to be. Section 25(3)
of PAIA provides for the
situation in which a request for access to a record is refused:
“
(3)
If the request for access is refused,
the
notice in terms of
subsection
(1) (b) must
-
(a)
state
adequate
reasons
for the
refusal, including the provisions of this Act relied upon;
(b)
exclude, from such reasons, any reference to the content of the
record; and
(c)
state that the
requester may lodge an internal appeal or an
application with a court, as
the case may be, against the
refusal
of the reguest, and the procedure (including the
period) for lodging the
internal appeal or application, as the
case
may be
.
”
(emphasis added)
[18]
Section 28 of PAIA provides
“
(1)
If a request for access is made to a record of a public body
containing information which may or must be refused in terms of
any
provision of Chapter 4 of this Part, every part of the record which-
(a)
does not contain; and
(b)
can reasonably be
severed
from any
part that contains,
any
such information
must,
despite any other provision of
this Act, be disclosed.
(2)
If a request for access to-
(a)
a part of a record is granted; and
(b)
the other part of the record is refused,
as
contemplated in subsection (1), the provisions of section 25 (2),
apply to paragraph (a) of this subsection and the provisions
of
section 25 (3) apply to paragraph (b) of this subsection.”
(emphasis added)
[19]
It is therefore crucial to determine whether any of the grounds of
refusal contemplated in Chapter 4 of PAIA apply to this
case, if they
do not, that is the end of the matter and the information sought must
be disclosed. If the requester has complied
with PAIA and the
information does not fall within one of the grounds of exclusion
there is no discretion on the part of the public
body or the court to
refuse access.
Transnet
Ltd and Another v SA Metal Machinery Co (Pty) Ltd
2006 (6) SA 285
(SCA) at para 58
[20]
Thus, the NLB not only bears the onus of proving that the record
sought falls within one of the grounds of refusal but it also
has a
duty to grant access if it fails to prove that the record sought
falls within such grounds.
[21]
The grounds of refusal must be interpreted as narrowly as possible,
as Currie and Klaaren explain:
'‘The
grounds of refusal are limitations of the right of access to
information. They must accordingly be read as narrowly
as possible,
consistent with their purpose of protecting specific rights or
compellingly important interests. Access to information
is the norm
and refusal to disclose information the exception. ”
Currie
& Klaaren The Commentary on the Promotion of
/Access
to Information Act
(2002) at p 105
information
in section 32(1) of the Constitution and the protection from
disclosure of information in defined circumstances. Those
circumstances are in turn divided into two categories, i.e. those
where access to a record must be refused and those where access
may
be refused.
[22]
The defined circumstances display also a concern not to hinder the
internal deliberations of public bodies by compelling the
disclosure
of records related to such deliberations in every instance. Albeit
that the NLB did not rely in its refusal on grounds
intended to
protect the internal deliberations of public bodies, the protection
afforded internal deliberations of public bodies
provide an
interpretive context in which to consider the grounds upon which the
NLB actually relied upon in refusing access. The
NLB describes its
functions in paragraph 6 of its answering affidavit. It then explains
that since the end of 2011, which is a
period covered by the request
for access to its minutes, it has been engaged in a process to
prepare for the issuing of the next
licence after Gidani’s
licence expires on 31 May 2014. It states that it is reasonable to
anticipate that Gidani will also
apply for the next licence.
[23]
In paragraph 10 of its answering affidavit, the NLB goes on to
describe the matters that it deals with in its meetings, which
include:
a) matters related
to compliance by Gidani with the requirements and conditions of
licence and any relevant agreement;
b) the financial and
other commercial affairs of the lottery operator, in this case
Gidani;
c) allegations and
counter-allegations of impropriety in relation to the operatio of the
National Lottery and the distribution of
lottery funds, some of which
ultimately prove to be wrongly made;
d) internal staffing
matters;
e) matters related
to the issuing of the next Licence, including matters of policy;
f) the distribution
of lottery funds as contemplated in the Lotteries Act, 57 of 1997
(‘the Act’).
[24]
The NLB further states the following in its answering affidavit:
‘
11.
Information that is supplied by Gidani to the NLB in connection with
the operation of the National Lottery, and which is usually
considered in the meetings of the NLB, is provided on a confidential
basis. This information covers financial, commercial and technical
information that Gidani supplies to the NLB.
12. I am not in a
position to describe the information I refer to in paragraphs 10 and
11 above in more detail without thereby disclosing
it to the
applicants. The disclosure of this information would be likely to
cause harm to the commercial and financial interests
of Gidani and
could place it at a disadvantage or prejudice it as a contender for
the next Licence, which the NLB is currently
preparing for. The
disclosure of the information would, in particular, advantage other
parties to the detriment of Gidani in contesting
for the next
Licence.
13. Allegations and
counter-allegations of impropriety, especially those that are
investigated and ultimately prove unfounded, or
where only aspects of
broad allegations prove to have some merit and to warrant specific
actions, would harm the third parties
against whom they were made if
they were simply disclosed through the disclosure of the minutes of
the NLB. This is significant
as such a disclosure would occur in
circumstances where the third parties concerned are not parties to
this application and will
not have an opportunity to be heard in
response to allegations made against them.
14. Internal
staffing matters, which may involve complaints against particular
staff members of the NLB, including senior officials,
are by
definition confidential. Often negative reports are made to the NLB
about its employees. These are discussed in meetings
of the NLB. The
reports are investigated, and where warranted disciplinary action is
taken. The minutes of the NLB in question
will reflect some of these
reports that are made against employees, but prior to their
investigation and any outcome of disciplinary
action where such
action is taken. It would be extremely damaging to the individual
employees for the NLB to disclose such reports
or discussions of
allegations not yet proven against employees, as recorded in its
minutes. It would place the individual employees,
irrespective of
their positions, at a distinct disadvantage in employment (contract)
or other contractual negotiations regarding
their current or future
employment, especially the latter. Causing such likely prejudice to
employees is not warranted at all.
It will adversely affect their
livelihood.’
[25]
The NLB further describes what it considers a serious security
breach, in which the applicant allegedly acted in an improper
manner
but, significantly, failed to bring to the attention of this Court in
its founding affidavit despite making allegations
regarding its
interest in security breaches at the NLB.
[26]
Save for a general statement that ‘any averment contained in
the answering affidavit that is not explicitly admitted
herein is
denied’, (replying affidavit para 4 p 127) the applicants do
not specifically place the allegations in paragraphs
6 to 14 of the
NLB’s answering affidavit in dispute. The applicants only
resort to legal argument in their replying affidavit
as to why the
allegations do not meet the requirements of PAIA, which is contested.
[27]
On the
Plascon
Evans
rule,
(
Plascon-Evans
Paints Ltd
v
Van Riebeeck
Paints (Pty) Ltd
1984
(3) SA 633
(A) at 634H-I and 635A-C) subject to the qualifications
sounded in
President
of RSA v M & G Media
2012
(2) SA 50
(CC) paras 32-36, the application must be decided on the
facts alleged in paragraphs 6 to 14 of the NLB’s answering
affidavit.
[28]
The NLB explains in paragraph 23 of the answering affidavit that
minutes of the meetings of the NLB for 2010 and 2011 will
be provided
in their entirety or with portions redacted and that the reasons for
this, i.e. the redaction, will be given in response
to the
allegations made in the founding affidavit.
[29]
The thirty-two minutes of the NLB for the period 2010 and 2011 are
then dealt with in paragraph 37 of the NLB’s answering
affidavit. The NLB states that the redacted portions of the minutes
deal with the matters that are set out in paragraphs 10 to
14 of its
answering affidavit and that it relies on section 36(1) of PAIA. It
is common cause that the relevant provision is section
36(1 )(b) and
(c) of PAIA.
[30]
The applicants do not challenge the constitutional validity of
section 36(1 )(b) and (c). If its requirements are met on the
facts
pleaded, the redactions are justified.
[31]
Section 36(1 )(b) and (c) of PAIA provides as follows:
‘
36
Mandatory protection of commercial information of third party
(1) Subject to
subsection (2), the information officer of a public body must refuse
a request for access to a record of the body
if the record contains -
(a) ...
(b) financial,
commercial, scientific or technical information, other than trade
secrets, of a third party, the disclosure of which
would be likely to
cause harm to the commercial or financial interests of that third
party; or
(c) information
supplied in confidence by a third party the disclosure of which could
reasonably be expected -
(i) to put that
third party at a disadvantage in contractual or other negotiations;
or
(ii) to prejudice
that third party in commercial competition.’
[32]
The first important feature of section 36(1 )(b) and (c) is that it
constitutes a mandatory ground of refusal, over which the
NLB has no
discretion if facts exist for its application. In other words, if
facts exist, the refusal of disclosure is required
by PAIA. (Currie
and Klaaren
The
Promotion of Access to Information Act Commentary
at
99). Access can be granted only if there is written consent for that
from a third party to which the information belongs or relates.
(Section 47 of PAIA).
[33]
Failure by a public body to follow the third party procedure in terms
of sections 47 to 49 of PAIA does not automatically entitle
a
requester to access the records that fall within the provisions of
section 36(1) of PAIA. On the contrary, it is plain from section
49(1) and (2) of PAIA that the public body makes the final decision
whether or not to grant access, giving due regard to:
a. any
representations that might have been made by a third party; or
b. the fact that a
third party did not have the opportunity to make representations in
terms of section 48 of PAIA.
[34]Thus
the alleged failure by the NLB to follow the third party procedure in
this case is not dispositive of whether or not the
applicants should
be granted access to the minutes of the NLB for the relevant periods
in their entirety.
[35]
The second important feature of the section is that the possibility
of harm occurring as a result of disclosure does not have
to be
proved as a fact on a balance of probabilities, i.e. that harm will
in fact occur.
[36]
All that is required is that the harm contemplated in the section
‘would be likely’ and/or ‘could reasonably
be
expected’ to occur. These tests would be met if the harm could
be expected as probable because reasonable grounds exist
for that
expectation.
{Transnet
Ltd and another
y
SA Metal Machinery
Co (Pty) Ltd
2006
(6) SA 285
(SCA) para 42)
[37]
It is plain that the NLB alleges that the redacted portions of the
minutes contain the information described in paragraph 10
of its
answering affidavit, and further that:
a) such information
as supplied by Gidani and considered at its (NLB's) meetings, which
covers financial, commercial and technical
information, is supplied
on a confidential basis to the NLB;
b) the disclosure of
such information is likely to cause harm to the commercial and
financial interests of Gidani and could place
it at a disadvantage or
prejudice it as a contender for the next Licence, which the NLB is
currently preparing for; in particular
such disclosure could
advantage other parties to the detriment of Gidani in contesting for
the next Licence;
c) the disclosure of
allegations and counter-allegations of impropriety, especially those
that are investigated and ultimately prove
unfounded, or where only
aspects of broad allegations prove to have some merit and to warrant
specific actions, would harm the
third parties against whom they were
made;
d) internal staffing
matters, which may involve complaints against particular staff
members of the NLB, including senior officials,
are by definition
confidential;
e) it would be
extremely damaging to the individual employees for the NLB to
disclose reports or discussions of allegations not
yet proven against
employees, as recorded in the minutes; and would place the individual
employees, irrespective of their positions,
at a distinct
disadvantage in employment (contract) or other contractual or
commercial negotiations regarding their current or
future employment.
[38]
On the facts there is sufficient evidence that the redacted portions
of the minutes contain matters that fall within the ambit
of section
36(1 )(b) and (c) of PAIA; and there is a reasonable basis to expect
that the harm contemplated in the section is likely
or could
reasonably be expected to occur.
[39]
It is relevant to the likelihood of harm that the applicants clearly
intend to publish what is revealed in the minutes of the
NLB.(
answering affidavit para 28 p 66. This is not addressed in reply).
The NLB does not merely make vague and generalised statements
as the
applicants contend. In contrast, the level of particularity that the
applicants insist upon would require the NLB to address
the grounds
of refusal in a manner that discloses the contents of the redacted
portions of the minutes. PAIA does not require nor
permit such an
approach. (Section 25 (3) (b)). This is not addressed in reply. The
NLB explains that it is not in a position to
describe the redacted
information without disclosing it to the applicants. The
Constitutional Court acknowledged this type of predicament
on the
part of a public body in the
M
& G Media
case,
for which the public body is not to blame.
President
of RSA v M & G Media
2012
(2) SA 50
(CC):
‘
[25]
Ultimately, the question whether the information put forward is
sufficient to place the record within the ambit of the exemption
claimed will be determined by the nature of the exemption. The
question is not whether the best evidence to justify refusal has
been
provided, but whether the information provided is sufficient for a
court to conclude, on the probabilities, that the record
falls within
the exemption claimed.
If
it does,
then
the State has discharged its burden under s 81(3). If it does not,
and
the
State has not given any indication that it is unable to discharge
this
burden
because to do so would reguire it to reveal the very information for
which
protection from disclosure is sought, then the State has only itself
to
blame
.’)
(Emphasis added )
[40]
Criticisms in the past as to how the portions have been redacted lose
sight of the fact that what section 28 of PAIA requires
is severance
where it is practically reasonable. Severance would be unreasonable
if the disclosure of what remains would,
inter
alia,
provide
clues to the contents of the deleted portions. (Currie and Klaaren
The Promotion of
Access to Information Act Commentary
at
91.) The NLB has redacted portions of the minutes apparently in such
a way as not to provide such clues, and this ought not to
be
condemned.
[41]
Even if it is found that one or other of the categories of
information redacted does not fall within the ambit of section 36(1
)(b) or (c), this wou!d only justify the disclosure of those portions
of the minutes that are not exempted from disclosure, but
not all the
other portions that fall within the ambit of the section.
[42]
The applicants made their request for the relevant minutes of the NLB
on 9 January 2012. The NLB declined the request in a
letter dated 7
February 2012, within the time permitted by PAIA, on the grounds
addressed above.
[43]
It is plain from the provisions of PAIA that the NLB is a public body
as contemplated in section 1(b) of PAIA, to which there
is no
obligation to have a mechanism in place for internal appeals against
refusals of access. Although the applicants deny this,
they do not
point to any provision of PAIA that imposes such an obligation. Their
contention is merely that they could not be faulted
for attempting to
appeal against the refusal of access because the NLB’s PAIA
manual provides for internal appeal.
[44]
The NLB in its answering affidavit does not fault the applicants for
lodging an internal appeal. It merely contests the allegation
that it
failed to comply with obligations imposed upon it by PAIA, when such
obligations do not exist. This issue is, in any event,
not
determinative of the question whether or not the applicants should
get access to the relevant minutes of the NLB in their entirety.
[45]
By way of background, the applicants claim that they are interested
in following recent stories relating to security breaches,
questionable funding decisions and poor management of the NLB.
Nothing of assistance can be derived from this general allegation.
[46]
The applicants have failed to take the court into their confidence
regarding conduct that the NLB considers improper, and which
related
to the one serious security breach that they were aware of when they
launched the application. They ought to have done
so over such a
serious matter.
[47]
The applicants have been given all the records of Distribution
Agencies for Arts, Culture and National Heritage; Charities;
and
Sports and Recreation for 2010 and 2011 and funding proposals and all
accounting of the spending of lottery money submitted
with regard to
awards made to the LOC (Local Organising Committee of the Soccer
World Cup) for 2010 and 2011.
[48]
The applicants have been informed, and have not contradicted, that
there are no records evidencing requests for funding to
the African
National Congress connected with its centenary celebrations.
[49]
Funding decisions under the Act are made by the Distribution Agencies
referred to in paragraph
Error!
Reference source not found,
above.
This is in terms of sections 26 to 31 of the Act. The records in this
regard for 2010 and 2011 that the applicants requested
were furnished
to them.
[50]
The applicants have failed to provide any
reasonable detail regarding the generalised allegation of ‘poor
management of the NLB’ despite the NLB saying in its answering
affidavit that it is unable to respond properly to such broad
and
generalised allegations. Instead of providing some detail so that the
NLB could respond and not be tarnished without the ability
to
respond, the applicants merely argue that the NLB confuses its right
of access to information. There is no merit in this contention.
[51]
Any party is entitled to a fair opportunity to respond to allegations
that have such great propensity for reputational harm
and are aired
in a public forum. The applicants cannot brush off the NLB’s
complaint on the basis that the allegations are
irrelevant because
they do not have to justify their request for access. They made the
allegations believing them to be true and
relevant to the proceedings
that they have launched.
[52]
Section 46 provides as follows:
‘
46
Mandatory disclosure in public interest
Despite
any other provision of this Chapter, the information officer of a
public body must grant a request for access to a record
of the body
contemplated in section ... 36(1) ..., if-
(a) the disclosure
of the record would reveal evidence of -
(i) a substantial
contravention of, or failure to comply with, the law; or
(ii) an imminent and
serious public safety or environmental risk; and
(b) the public
interest in the disclosure of the record clearly outweighs the harm
contemplated in the provision in question.’
[53]
The two requirements under subsections (a) and (b) must be met; and
the enquiry depends on the facts of the particular case.
(M
Qoboshiyane NO v Avusa Publishing Eastern Cape (Pty) Ltd
(864/2011)
[2012] 166 ZASCA paras 10 and 14.)
[54]
There is no evidence that the disclosure of the minutes would reveal
evidence of a substantial contravention of the law; or
failure to
comply with the law.
[55]
There is also no evidence that the public interest in the disclosure
of the contents of the redacted portions of the minutes
clearly
outweigh the harm contemplated in section 36(1).
[56]
It is clear that the application should be dismissed with costs for
the reasons advanced above.
[57]
The following order is made:
The application is
dismissed with costs.
P.Z.
EBERSOHfoXJ
ACTING
JUDGE OF)THE HIGH COURT
The
applicant’s counsel: Adv.N. Rajab-Budlender
The
applicant’s attorney: WILLEM DE KLERK ATTORNEYS
C/O SANET DE LANGE
ATTORNEYS
Ref. I 24/N/0111
Tel 012 362 3970
The
respondent’s counsel: Adv. N.H.Maenetjie SC
The
respondent’s attorneys: GILDENHUYS MALATJI INC
TEL. 012 428 8600
REF. T. Malatji/T.
Vilakazi/01676105