REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN TttE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DMSION , PRETORIA
Case Number: 2023.054014
( 1)
(2)
(3)
RCPORT~VES
0 INT[RE~O OTttEA JUOGEs:@m
RJ;V1SEO ES~
17Apri12026 •
DATE - SIC;.:;
In the matter between:
GTG FOURIES PIGGERY (PTV) LTD
and
MPHOMAJA
MOOKETSA IRAMASODI
ANGELA THOKOZILE DIDIZA
DEPARTMENT OF A.GRICUL TURE. LAND REFQR,M
AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Applicant
first Respondent
Second Respondent
Trurd Respondent
Fourth Respondent
Delivered : This judgement WcJS prepared and authored by the Acting Judge whose
name is reflected and is handed down e/ect.ronicolly by circulation to the Parties I lheir
fegol representatives· by email and by uploacfmg ii to the electronic filo of this matter
on caseUncs . The date of tho Judgment is deemed to be 17 April 2026.
JUDGMENT
RAUBENHEIMER, AJ
Introduction
11) The applicant seeks to review the decision or the first respondent not to
compensate it for the loss or its entire heard or pigs due to African Swine Fever in
terms of section 19(1) or the Animal Diseases Act 35 ol 1984 (the ADA), and seeks
the subst~ution or the decision by the first respondent with an order that it be
compensated In the amount of R 29 493 302, excluding VAT.
The parties
(2) The applicant is a private company conducting a commercial pig farming
operation in the district of Potchefstroom. It trades in all aspects of pig farming and
hosted in excess of 17 000 pigs In the operation at the time of this apphcallon.
(3) The first respondenl is the director or Animal Health in the Department of
Agriculture. Land Reform and Rural Development
(4) The second respondent is the Direclor-General or the OepartmenI of
Agriculture. Land Reform and Rural Development
[5) The third respondent is the Minister or the Department of Agriculture, Land
Reform and Rural Development.
(6) The fourth respondent is the Department of Agriculture. Land Reform and Rural
Oevelopmenl
Background
(7] On 6 March 202 t . the applicanl received a report thal a number or pigs had
died. II was furthermore reported thal the animals presented w~ symploms consistent
with African Swine Fever (ASF).
2
[8) As a consequence or the symptoms of ASF having been noticed, the applicant
immedialely reported it to its private veterinarian and on 7 March 2021, a stale
veterinarian, a representative or the founn respondent and a representative or the
South African Pork Producers Organisation (SAPPO). attended the applicant's
premises to conduct post - mortems and to collect representative samples or two dead
sows, which resulted in the entire piggery being placed under quarantine as part or the
control measure by the state veterinarian. pending runner investigation.
[9) The incidence of ASF was confirmed and at the time or this confirmation. the
total number of pigs owned by the applicant and present on the premises amounted
to more than 17 000 pigs. all of which were reganjed as either contact or infected
animals, as envisaged in the ADA.
(10) In accordance with the direction in the veterinary quarantine notice, the
app6cant prepared a contingency protocol plan as part of the control measure, which
was submitted to the first respondent on 21 March 2021. The aim of the plan was to
contain the outbreak, prevent the spread of ASF and to preserve as many of the
clinically healthy pig.s as possible.
(11) At the I,me of the compiling of the plan, the vast majority or the pigs were
clinically healthy as confirmed by regular testing and did not display any signs
suggestive of ASF.
(12) The plan envisioned, infer ofia, the salvage slaughter of the clinically healthy
animals for human consumption, which, at that stage, amounted to approximately
15 600 animals to the value of approximately R 28 000 000.
(13) The first respondent rejected the plan on 22 March 2021 and proposed
altemative options. which entailed that the farm remain under quarantine for 30 days
after the last pig mortaOty and that the salvage slaughter of clinically healthy pigs could
only be conducted on the premises to limit the potential spread of the virus. The
only be conducted on the premises to limit the potential spread of the virus. The
applicant was requested to revise the action plan in accordance with the proposed
options.
(14) On 1 April 2021, positive test results indicated that the virus had started lo
spread. placing the entire herd at risk due to the entire herd being placed in insolation
as part of the prescribed control measure. This resulted in all the pigs becoming
contact or Infected animals and therefore necessitating the isolation and destruction
of the animals as prescribed in the ADA.
(15) On 7 April 2021, the applicant informed the first respondent that the entire herd
was contact or infected animals and requested the first respondent to order the
destruction ol the contact and infected animals in terms or the regulations to the ADA.
(16) The same day, the director ol veterinary services responded and informed the
appficanl that no order to destroy the entire herd will be issued.
(17] The applicant consequently approaclled the Mahikeng High Court on an urgent
basis, for an order 10 compel the first respondent to provide lhe requisite legislative
instruction to destroy lhe entire herd, which order was granted on 19 April 2021. The
first respondent subsequently issued a letter authorising the destruction of all contacl
and infccte<! animals.
(18) A total ol 17 191 animals were consequently destroyed or othe!Wise cisposed
ol, pursuant to the control measure, under the supervision ol lhe fourth respondent.
(19) On 30 June 2021, the applicant then lodged its application for compensation in
terms of the ADA, which claim was rejected by lhe first respondent on 2 September
2021. The basis lor lhe rejection was lhat infected and in-con1ac1 pigs do not have any
value and therefore determined the value or the compensation payable 10 be zero.
(20) An objection was subsequently lodged with the third respondent, resulting in
lhe second respondent appointing a panel comprising of senior officials or the fourth
respondent. The panel conducted a hearing and made recommendations to the
second respondent after hearing representallons by the applicant and the first
responde nt.
(21) The second respondent made recommendations on the basis or. inter afia, the
recommendations ol lhe panel, 10 the third respondent.
recommendations ol lhe panel, 10 the third respondent.
(22) On 23 August 2022, the third respondent set aside the decision of the first
respondent and remilled the claim to the Director lor reconsideration and ordered the
first respondent lo consult with the applicant in reconsideration in order 10 setlle at an
acceptable compensation value. The applicanl was further required 10 submit the
preeise number of pigs deslroyed pursuant lo lhe conlfol measure lo the firsl
respondent.
(23] On 15 September 2022. a meeting was held in compfiance wilh the direction of
the third respondent. During lhe meeting. the applicant provided lhe first respcndent
with infonnalion substantiating the claim for compensation.
124) The first respondent rejected the claim for compensation on 30 January 2023,
on the basis that no value above zero was acceptable as compensation for the
destroyed animals.
[251 This Is the decision sought to be reviewed.
Statutory rramewotl<
126) The control and management of animal diseases is governed by the Animal
Diseases Ad. 1
127) The Act Is administered by the Department of Agricollure, Land Reform and
Rural Development
128) The ADA defines an animal disease as a disease to which animals are liable
and whereby the nonnal functions of any organ or body of an animal is Impaired or
disturbed by any protozoon, bacterium, virus. fungus. paraslte. other organism or
agenL2
(29) The ADA provides for control measures which are contained in !able 2 to the
regulations. These control measures are applicable to controlled animal dlseases.3
[30) The ASF Is categorised as a controlled disease and is defined as a highly
conlagious viral disease lransrnilted by wild pigs, warthogs, bushpigs and the tampan.
Its symptoms are high fever, reddish discolouration of lhe skin of lhe abdomen and
' Acl JS of 1084.
~ ld•I wcrlon 1
1 AnilNI Oisea5-M R~i.Aatlons GN IU026 cc 10469, 2G Sc-plember 1936.
5
hind quarters . in-co-ordination, somnolence, high mortality and haemorrhage of all
internal organs, especially in lymph nodes.'
(31) Table 2 provides that the veterinary control measures to be implemented are
lhe supervised Isolation and destruction of all contact and infected animals.
(32) The minister is, In terms of section 9(1), authorised, in respect of control
measures. to prescribe general control measures or particular control measures in
respect of particular anlmar diseases and parasites. According to section 9(1)(b), lhe
control measures can be prescribed for the entire Republic or a particular defined area.
(33) Section 11(1)(a) of the ADA obliges the owner or manager of land containing
animals to take all reasonable steps to prevent lhe infection of animals wilh any animal
disease, or parasite and the spreading !hereof from the land or animals. Such owner
shall also take steps reasonably necessary for lhe eradication or animal diseases and
parasites on the land or In respect of animals.
(341 Section 11(1)(b)(i) prescribes lhat where animaJs have become or can
reasonably be suspected of having become infected wilh any animal disease or
parasite, the owner must apply the prescribed treatment or any other treatment
deemed suitable and customary In lhe clrcumslances.
(35] Further, section 11(1)(b)(il) prescribes that if animals have become infected or
can reasonably be suspected of having become infected wilh any controlled animal
disease, the owner must Immediately report such incidence to lhe director.
(36) Section 11 (2) states lhat a veterinarian or any olher person finding incidents or
suspected incidents of any controlled animal disease in any animal or progeny or
product thereof. also has an obligation 10 repcrt such incidents to the director.
[37] One of the measures that the first respondent may activate in terms of Table 2
of the Regulations is lo order the destruction of the contact and infected animals.
• Id DI Tublc 2.
[38] Section 19 of the ADA provides for lhe paymenl of compensation In the even!
or a loss suffered due to control measures implemenled as a result or an animal
disease.
[39] Regulalion 305 authorises the director to delermine the applicable
compensation in terms of section 19.
[40) Seclion 1 or ADA defines a control measure as any measure prescribed by the
M,nister under section 9 in relation lo any controlled purpose. Controlled purpose, on
the other hand, means the prevention or the bringing into the Republic, or lhe
prevention or combattlng of or control over an outbreak or lhe spreading, or lhe
eradication. or any animal disease. or where applicable, or any parasite.
(41) Conlrol measures enlail movement restrictions and permas, mandalory
reporting, quarantine and isolation. compulsory destruction and biosecurily prolocols.•
{42) In 1erms or scelion 2 or ADA. lhe person responsible for the exercising of the
powers and lhe performing of the duties conferred or imposed under lhe Act is lhe
director of the Directorate of Animal Heatth or the department. who shall be a
veterinary and who shall exercise the powers and perform the functions with due
regard to any instructions Issued by lhe Minister.
Grounds for review
(43) The review application relies on the following provisions of PAJA7 for the review:
a. Section 6(2)(a)(iii) In that the first respondent was biased or reasonably
suspecled of bias.
b. Section 6(2)(b) in that a mandalory and material procedure or condition
prescribed by an empowering provision CT.e. the Act, the regulalions
lherelo and an in1emal memorandum) was nol complied with.
' Ab<M: n J
• Section 9(2) ot ADA.
' Promotion ol Adrninis1ratHe Als:ilce Ao 3 of 2000
7
c. Section 6(2)(c) in that the decision was procedurally unfair.
d. Section 6(2)(d) In that the action/decision was materially Influenced by an
error of law.
e. Section 6(2)(e)(i) in that the action/decision was laken for a reason nol
aulhorised by the empowering provision (i.e. the Act lhe regulalions
thereto and an internal memorandum).
f. Section 6(2)(e)(ii) in that the action/decision was laken for an ulterior
purpose or motive.
g. Section 6(2)(e)(iii) In that the action/decision was taken because irrelevant
considerations were taken into account and relevant considerations were
not considered.
h. Section 6(2)(e)(vi) In that the action/decision was taken arbitrarily or
capriciously.
i. Section 6(2)(f)(ii)(aa) in thal the action/decision itself is nol rationally
connected to the purpose for which it was taken
J. Section 6(2)(f)(ii)(bb) in that the action/decision itself is not rationally
connected to the purpose of the empowering provision (i.e. the Act, the
regulations lherelo and an internal memorandum)
k. Section 6(2)(f)(ii)(ce) in that the decision/action itself is not rationally
connected to the information before the first respondent.
Section 6(2)(f)(ii)(dd) in that the action/decision itself is not rationally
connected to the reasons given for It by the first respondent.
m. Section 6(2)(h) in that the first respondent in the exercise of the power and
the performance of the function authorised by the empowering provision
(i.e. Section 19 of the Act) In pursuance of which the decision was
purportedly taken. is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could
have so exercised the power or performed the function in the way and
manner the first respondent had.
n. Section 5(3) in that the reasons furnished by the first respondent are
patently inadequate. irrational and non-sensical and that, on this basis,
there exists a legal presumption that the decision by the first respondent
was taken without good reason.
o. Section 8(1)(c)(ii)(aa) for the substitution or replacing the decision with an
order that the first and third respondents compensate the applicant in the
amount of R 29 493 302 (excl VATI,
Discusskm
(44) The legal framework dealing with compensation is found in the statutory
framework as set out in section 19 of the ADA and regulation 30 of the Regulations to
the ADA. the policy pronouncements of the fourth respondent as contained ,n the
internal memorandum dated 25 May 2009.
(45) Section 19 reads as follows:
"(1) The owner of any animal or other thing which hos been desltoyed or otherwise
disposed of pursuant 10 any control measure, or any provision of section 17 (3) or (5),
or any other provision of this Act. by the director or on his auth0<ity. may submit an
application for compensation for the loss of the animal or thing to the director.
(2) The direelor may, tol<ing into consideration -
(a) the appllcable compensation, based on a fair market value of the animal or
thing, which has been pre-scribed for purposes of this section or, where no
compensation has been so proscn1>cd. any amount fixed by him in i>CCOrd3nee
with any criterion deemod applicable by him;
(b) the value of anything wtuch has in connection with the animal or thing been
returned 10 the owner.
(e) any amount which is due by the owner pursuant 10 any provision ol lhis Act
in respect of the animal or thing to the State: and
9
(d) any amount which may accrue to the owner from any insurance thereof, foe
a fair amount as compen$0tlon.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2). the direclor shall. in the case
where a carcass has been disposed of in terms or section 17 (5). foe the non incomo
accruing from such disposal. against which any amount payoblc by lhc owner
concerned by virtue of any provision of this Act In respect of Iha c:.rcass to ~ State
,s to be set off. as compensatlon in respect of the carcass, if -
(a) the owner is otherwise entitled in terms or this section to compensation; and
{b) that nett Income exceeds tho amount presc:,lbcd In respect of any ouch
~rcass .
(4) No compensation shaU be payable in respect of any animal or thing which has been
in coMeci:ion with the commission of an offence in terms of this Act or In respect of
which such offence has been committed. as the case m.:1y be, and which ha$ been
destroyed or otherwise disposed of by the dire-ctor or by his order pursuant to the
provisions of this Act ~
(46) Regulation 30 reads as follows :
"When compensation is payabic to a respon~ble person in terms of sc-ction 19 of the
Act, the applicable compensation shall be detenninecl by the director.·
(4 7] The internal memorandum deafing with compensation states that:
~,n 3 d.is.ease outbreak. however it is very important for the director to engender
maximum support of the effected fanners r« the control measures, by determining a
mutually agreeable compensation value. This requires the director to liaise with the
affected parties ;s an ad hoc rapid response to determine the most 3p,propri.:,1c and
acceptable compc-nsaUon value. The amended Animal Diseases regulations on
compensation empowers the director to determine the applicable compensation in
consultation with relevant industry organisations and enable government to persist with
the current pollc:y of generous but roalistic compen.sation for animals destroyed In
disease control campaigns:
(48] The third respondent. as the political and administrative head of the Oepartmenl
and the designaled internal appeal aulhorily, has the power of direction and has the
final word of the Department on the validity or the particular administtative acl •
(49) Internal appeals are the primary mecllanism for hierarchical accounlability,
allowing the superior functionary to ensure that the decision is correct and in
accordance with departmental policy.9
(50) After considering the report and recommendations submitled to her in terms of
section 23(3)(a) of the ADA. the third respondenl set the decision by the first
respondent aside in terms of section 23(4)(a) and rererred the matter back 10 I.he first
respondent. together with directives in terms or section 23(4){a).
(51) The effect of the setting aside of the initial decision was that that decision was
regarded as an invalid decision.
(52) As lhe decision was an Invalid decision, the lhird respondent issued corrective
measures in the form or directives to the first respondent
(53) The directives issued to the first respondent dictate the future conduct or the
first respondent as the designated functionary and forms the legal basis for the
subsequent administrative action.10
(54) In the directive. the third respondent rererred 10 the process contained in the
memorandum of 25 May 2009 and ins\fucted the first respondent lo follow lhe process
as prescribed In the said memorandum.
(55) The first respondent did not have the power to consider the matter de novo.
She was not permitted to start the process from scratch with an unfcuered or wide
dlsaetion ."
• Nt:;11.-93--so v MEC. Fi'rtl#l«, Kwo-ZCAI N.il;;it, Md AtlOfl';t-t 2010 (J) SA 201 (SCA) at p;)ta ,a
• Koyabo u11d Ofhots v Minister for Home Aniirs and Othors200~ {12) BCLR 1192 (CC) .ll p,,1r3 35; OctWJCICll!JO
Holdinr.;s (pty) Ud v Southcm Spha,o !..tining And l►-vulopmc.nt Comp.any Ud iJnd ~201'4 (J) BCLR 265 (CC)
at pora 122.
at pora 122.
111 Mirtisk.ror Oc/cnc:v Otld AWt.JtY Vt;lL'f3fl$ y r.tot.w.w•d Oi.11C.T3 201, (C) 8CLR 930 {CC)~, p,lm 41; A/lmtt.,d and
()/IH/rS v Mioisr,,, 01 Uomo Al1Jirs {10d /.n<JU1u12018 ( 12) 0ClR U$1 (CC) .. , ~ r:, 41,
11 l11t,:,u:,drJ Two (Ply} Ltd v MEC /01 Row1 umJ Pvblic ~ Eu~t1:m Co()(,. o,.,d AnO#ht.•r 2007 (6) SA 442 (Ck)
ot para 47.
11
(56] The directives Issued by the third respondent constitutes the new authorising
provision 11 or the governing law for subsequent proceedings " As such, the directives
constitute the jurisdictional tacts, being the preconditions that must exist or be
complied with before an administrator can validly exercise a statutory power.,.
(57] The directives of the third respondent amounts to an objeclive jurisdictional fact
in the sense that the administrator eilher engaged in the settlement process or not."
(58] In the directive, the third respondent stipulates that a new compensation award
had to be issued. She, however, went further and prescribed a specific process to be
followed to arrive at the substantive goal. The process to be followed is the preliminary
step and serves as a condition preecdcnt and as such, constitutes the procedural
jurisdictional tact•• in terms ot which the substantive goal cannot be arrived at without
following the prescribed procedure. 17
(59) The remlttal of the determination of the compensation by the third respondent
is a delegation of limited authority lo perform a specific corrective task, and the
jurisdiction of the first respondent is revived only for the purpose of seeking a
settlement. 1•
(60) An administrntor, delegated as such, has lo comply with the prescript lo achieve
the purpose of the provision as contained in the remittal itself. 19
(61) Where a matter Is referred back lo an administrator with specific instructions
from a higher administrative authori1y, especially an appeat authority, the instruction
11 Hoe.let, Attminc:tmtive Ltw.in S.0.Ah AJ,ICIJ :z Cd (Juto. Catie Town 2012) at 2"8.
•J Bums and Bc-ut:fl'S. Adminnuatiw, u-,,, under tM 1996 Co-dit.ution ,4 ed (lexlsNem. Bune<'#Otths 2013) at 207.
,_. Krml>edCy Jul'liOr SchOOI Ntd AnOlhf, v Nc-iJd, No&icm Qlp.: Ocp;,r&mc;nt of EtJ,ut;;:J6on ;,rKI O(hc,r,; 2010 (1) SA
217 (SCA) 01p31311 ,
,s SolJ!h Nricnn O«MCO orwlAid Fund ond AnOU)('r!I Mln,:.Je<ol Jus:i«, 1$1&7C1) SA 3 1 (C) al 3,ct-1-350
•G AtlP.t1 Con~V«.l lnw,!;(fnenl HOldrf/!}3 (Pry} Ud Md OUl!Cr:s v Ch,cl E,oev:ivo omccr, South Alnc.otl Sod,V
&,curit1 Agency ,\ndOfher.; 2014 (1) Sf\604 (CC) at po~ 28 & 30: 1.tEC fo, Hc.l!:h, EDS/om ~ 1po ,')(>(I Ntol tir;r
v Kirbnd Investments ,Ply) Lid V.:i Eyo ..rd Lazer lnslitufo 2014 (3) SA 481 (CC) at p.'.lt.l 98.
11 Wa~., City of Cape TCMfl and O!hen 200a (6) SA 129 (CC) at para 71-72; Paol.a v Jccva NO and Olhcr.;
2004 (1) SA 300 (SCA) at par., 16.
111 Rot.Ji Molor lndu:;t,y 0,panil.:ilion and Anotherv MmisterdW,1ter <llld Env!,onm,:nl<1I Affair.:. .ind Allotht.~ 2014
(3) SA 2:S 1 (SCA) al p.v11 24.
'' W~ Tt.i.n:.i:".IOln.1I t.oeol COtmc;i v V.:in Oytt 2002 (4) SA 653 (SCA) :.1 p:ua 13: Alric.an Chti'.stiun Dc,noc.,-a/ic
Party v Eltcrornl Cammi.u.lon It/kl Ottw:n 2006 (3) SA 305 (CC) a.I p&taS 2◄-26.
restricts and focuses the discretion of lhe adminislralor'" and is now a bound
discretion.2 1
(62J Subordinale officials are bound by the decisions and direclives ol the superiors
and have no discrelion to ignore the directives or decide whether the jurisdiclional lact
is necessary. 22 If such facl is absent. the power has nol been conrerred by law,
irrespective of the opinion ol lhe adminisl.rator.»
(631 Where reconsideration Is ordered, the administrator must do so with an open
mind and cannot simply adopl the previous slance'• or repaekagc, the decision simply
to avoid the instructions ol the superior adminislralive aulhorily.
(641 The dlreclivc of the third respondent referred the firsl respondenl back 10 lhe
process and policy contained in lhe internal memorandum. which the firsl respondenl
was in lhe first place, obliged to follow.
(65) The admlnislralor to whom a decision has been remitted is legally barred lrom
insisting on the same outcome. The reason for the remission was that the initial
decision was set aside.
[66) The rererral directive to the firs I respondent contained a clear and unambiguous
instruction to settle.
(67] The directive to settle creales a new procedural landscape, which precludes
lhe adminlslrator lrom reverting to a previous unilaleral approach.'°
(68) Where a settlement framewo11< has been established, as in the internal
memorandum. lhe administrator is obliged to implement it faithfully,
XI rtkly111NJ0t.hers W'Jo/ll11VIQ~ NO ottdOmcr., 1063 (2) SA 584 (T) ot !i9Ql!',H: Nr$h:1,JfJ~;o i- MEC: FJn.mco. KZN 0tKJAnoa1etabovcna :11 p;lil'I 17, 21
Kemp and Ott1cn v 1/tyk and Otltt•r.t 2005 (G) SA 5 10 (SCA) at ~ 10: Ottwood IJfld AIKlllle.r v Mr,eter OI
Homo An!fir.,. M d Dlhtrs 2000 (3) SA !l.l6 (CC) Bl para ~-55.
zi SA Def~ Md Aia FundabQvo n 15 al 35A-8,
-:::i Paos~ v.Jeevo NOan<JOllws above n 17 atp3r.> 16.
;, MEC for l'.Qrieulr~ . Con.s~tion. Environment and Lan(I ~'r.:i v SASOL O,t (Pry/ Lid roOG (S) SA 483 CSCAJ .ti P.110 1Q
~ H,1,01 llll'>I.I Aootr.e, v M•'nlJ.ter of FN'13oco ltnd Oo\'f'IO(lfncnt Pt.tno.fng, Y.~.::tcm Ctpo, or,d Orn.t!,:, 2003 (4) SA $?& {C) at 62:lt - 024A
[69] An instruction to settle converts the discrelion from a unilaleral power lo a duly
to negotiate bone fide.26 Such instruction removes lhe power to act withoul the
applicant's input and presupposes a bilaleral process.
(70] An admlnistralor involved in such process musl be prepared to be persuaded
that the position taken when the initial decision was made was lncorrect,21 and must
enter the negotiations wilh the bona fide intention 10 arrive at an agreement."
(71) The instruction to settle amounts to an instruction to fulfil the constitutional duty
of fairness that rests on the state.29
(72) An instruction to settle is elleclive ly an instruct.ion to the first respondent to
apply her discretion to reach a compromise.
[73) The directive to settle on an acceptable compensation involves an objective
standard that must be justifiable to a reasonable person in the position of the claimant,
and sustainable within the legal and policy framework."'
(74) The acceplability requirement imposes a consensus seeking obligation on the
state. which implies mutuality of interests. In terms of this mutuality, ne~her party has
on absolute right to dictate the price. The state must ofrer a f,gure that is reasonably
defensible as fair.
[75] The acceptability threshold is tethered to the market value of healthy animals.
and offering an amount significantly lower would be patently unfair and lhererore
unacceptable."
[76] Any compensation offered by the state has to be objectively and reasonably
fair, and the state is required to achieve a just and equitable balance between the
public interest and the Interests of the affected persons. 32
:t Hoc.11~ above! n 12 .,1 106-t 1 t .
~: Logblo Propeniu cc v &(k)c ,:.oo NO ..ind Ofh«s 2003 (2) SA -460 (SCA) al para 2~.
!! G~ Moenl$1'f.,i,er 8 oetdi"_ry {Pty) Lid v Dircc.'or of Animal Hearth. Dcp>J1fmcnt of Ar;riaAurv. Lund Refomi
and Rural ~t on<JAl'IOl/iC.rI20Z•I ZAV-1:HC 175 ill p;:o 13.
='> Logbro Ptopert~ CC :,,oo.,e n ::i7 al p.w.1 7.
='> Logbro Ptopert~ CC :,,oo.,e n ::i7 al p.w.1 7.
» Coo,,po Moor.i~r&Jctdcrf obovo n ie cil p.v.t l-',
,, Id at~• 22.
,;: Du Toil v Mlll(:roto/Tron.!pM 2006 (I) SA 297 (CC) tll ~ a.
1771 Where the state and a private citizen am required to agree on a financial figure,
the state is obliged to Involve itself in fair play."'
[78} The settlement instruction raises the bar from a ·take it or leave It approach" lo
a collaborative approach where the final figure is justified by objective, market value
and equitable principles."'
(791 The duty to negotiate In good faith has the effect that compensation is not
regarded as a unilateral gift, but entails a process of equitable redress, during which
the state is obliged to engage in the process. respecting the rights and interests of the
claimant"
(801 The state must provide just and equitable compensalion. the purpose of which
is to prevent the financial ruin of the claimant. An amoun~ potentially leading lo such
ruin, is not acceptable."'
[811 A remiltal with an instruction to settle requires a genuine, thorough and fair
Investigation and the official cannot simply "rubber stamp· the previous decision that
was set aside. 37
Application
(82) Treating the instruction of tho third respondent as a mere suggestion amounts
to a breach of the principle of institutional integrity and disregards the principle of
adminislrative hierarchy.
(83) The SCA established the "healthy state· as the criteria for the calculation of the
fair market value of the animals.,.
~ Pcrm:.ancnr Scetet111Y of the D,:portmt:t11 ol E~ of the Covemtf)/jnf ol 1M EJUJ~m C.1f)O Provw,cc orld
At10lt1ct v Ed-U-Col,t}ge (Pf) tStct/01121} 2001 (2) SA 1 (CC) al para 24.
Joi Du Tcit v MhlL~ of Tra!,/X>fl 2006 (1) SA 297 (CC) a1 para 34-37; Ministet of A!}rlelill11te ond Anolfic, v
GJ.oolilficbv.sh Diary F.nn,.'ng (Pry) Ud (2008} 4 All SA 8 t {SCA) at paras 21-21
~ Floronce v l'be Govcmmcntol lhO Rt.";:,UMc of South Africa 20t ◄ (6) SA 4S6 {CC) .11 p..1m 35 & 4$
)'; Mini:.f<Y of /l(lrictAvlo Ubo'I!: n 34 .Jt p.va 18. 11 Mut.w., v Mu~ c,uiuity Fund Dnd OfhOm 2:0'26 (1) $A 1 (CC) 01 p;)r;J , ,.
~ Min1',-.tud ll(Jn'cutruru obove n )4 DI pMa 1 ◄ •
184) Her contention in her answering affidavit lhal the departmental strategy is not
prescriptive and lhal she is consequently not bound by it, is a clear misdirection.
(85) The context of lhe departmental strategy, as contained in the internal
memorandum. ~s of some significance. The memorandum was compiled as an
explanation for the amendments to regulalion 30 in terms of whieh the previous
compensation parameters of 100%. 80% and 50% of the fair market value of animals
killed for controlled veterinary acts were not practical. The regulation was therefore
amended to unshackle the discretion of lhe particular functionary, leading to the wider
discretion in the determination of compensation.
(86) The memorandum speclficalty states that the determination of compensalion Is
not a unilateral administrative act but requires a mutually agreeable compensation
value. The functionary is furthermore required to riaise with affected parties The
purpose of this liaison is to serve as a rapid response lo determine compensation that
is appropriate and acoeptable. This prescript already foreshadows a particular
approach and process.
[87] The memorandum furthermore requires the functionary lo consult w~h the
applicable industry organisations in determining applicable compensation. This Is a
further foreshadowing of a particular process and approach.
[88] The overriding purpose of the memorandum is localed in the po!icy of generous
but realistic compensation.
[89) When the first resporident made her initial decision that the value of the
compensation is nil, because any infected animal has no monetary value, she clearly
did not adhere 10 the purpose of the palicy and did not follow the process prescribed
in the memorandum .
Substitution
(90] The applicant contends for the ex.islence of exceptional grounds as provided
for in section 8(c)(ll) of PAJA and lhal the court should consequently substitute lhe
impugned decislon of the first respondent with one that slates that the applicant must
be paid the full amount or the compensation claimed. The applicant furthermore
argued thal the court Is in as good a position as the Director. or ·even belier' 10 make
such on order. base<! on 1he facts and the history· of this matter.
(91 I Although the court may have. In its possession, the full record of the evidence
before the first respondent. the court does not have access to the required expertise.
The decision Is polycentric, involving execut.ive functions, and the f11SI respondent is
best positioned, in light or her academic qualifications and involvement in the
formulation, implementation and execution of policy.,,,
[921 The decision does not amount to a foregone conclusion in respect of the
technical knowledge, insight and understanding required. It would seem that there is,
in any event. a factual dispute which is not capable of resolution on the papers.
[93] As the decision by the first respondent is set aside by this court, she is not
prevented from making a fresh determination on an acceptable compensation value
as interpreted in this judgment and in accordance with the guidelines provided for in
this judgment
Conclusion
[94) The decision of the first respondent to determine the value of the compensation
contrary lo the directive of the appeal oulhorily and the process contained in the
directive of the appeal authority is reviewabte in accordance with section 6 of the
Promotion of Administrative Justice Acl
Order
(95) The decision of the first respondent. made on 30 January 2023, by determining
the value of compensation in terms of section 19(2) of the Animal Diseases Act 35 of
1984 as nil. is hereby reviewed and set aside.
,o Caot\3~ 'Cltuity;ng the Exceptional Citcumstanoe Te-st 11'1 Trenco,t. An Opportunity rTll$Siita'~ (2015) 7
Cons1itutiom1t Coult Roview 115 al 121 - 128
[96]1 The da 1m of the :applicant for com pensa,tion an r·e rms of s action, 19 ( 1 ) of 'lhc Ac.1:
is remitted to tfle first respondent ror recon-sidera11ion
(97]1 In terms of sec-tion 8(2)(b) of t.lne P1romotlorn1 of Administrative Justice Act 3 of
2000, the Dlredor is ordered to take into consideration, tn the deteiminatlon of an
acoepta'bte compensation. that the applicant's deslrol'(ed ·animals ,or things" shall be
valued on ~he basis that tooy were fn a "'healthy• state,
[98] Each party shall rpa,y their ,own costs .
Appeara nces:
AdvHeynsSC
E RAUIBENHEIMER.
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH
1
COURT
GAUTENG IDIVIIStON , PRETORIA
For I.he Applicant
I nslructed by. Van der Merwe Saayman-Fou rie Attorneys
For the Respondents: Adv C Puck.rd n SC
Instructed by. State Attorney
Da~e or Hearing: 15 October 2025
Da~e of judgment 17 April 2026
1.R