Section 7 of PAJA and the 180-Day Review Period: Key Principles and Case Law

South Africa's Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) is a law designed to ensure fairness and transparency in government decision-making. PAJA aims to make government more accountable and ensure that decisions affecting citizens are made fairly and transparently.

Here's a simplified explanation of PAJA and administrative decisions:

What is PAJA?

PAJA is a law that protects citizens from unfair or unreasonable decisions made by government officials or bodies. It gives people the right to:

• Be treated fairly when the government makes decisions affecting them
• Know why certain decisions were made
• Challenge those decisions if they believe they're unfair

 

What is an Administrative Decision?

An administrative decision is any action taken by a government official or body that affects a person's rights. For example:

• Granting or denying a license
• Approving or rejecting a building permit
• Awarding or refusing a government benefit

These decisions must be:

• Lawful (following the rules)
• Reasonable (making sense)
• Procedurally fair (giving people a chance to be heard)

Key Points About PAJA

• Fair Procedures: Before deciding, officials must:

• Inform people who might be affected
• Give them a chance to share their side of the story
  
  

• Reasons for Decisions: If a decision negatively affects someone, they have the right to ask for and receive written reasons.
• Time Limit for Challenges: If someone wants to challenge a decision in court, they usually have to do so within 180 days (about 6 months) of:

• Exhausting all internal appeal options, or
• Becoming aware of the decision and its reasons

 

• Exceptions: If someone misses the 180-day deadline, they can ask the court for an extension. However, they need to make a formal request (called "condonation") explaining why they were late and why their case should still be heard.

Legal Principles Under Section 7 of PAJA

1. 180-Day Time Limit
• Judicial review applications must be filed:
• Within 180 days after exhausting internal remedies (e.g., appeals).
• If no internal remedies exist, within 180 days of becoming aware of the administrative action and its reasons.
• Delays shorter than 180 days may still be deemed "unreasonable," allowing courts to dismiss applications.
2. Condonation for Late Filing
• Section 9 permits courts to extend the 180-day period if "in the interests of justice".
• A formal condonation application is mandatory, requiring litigants to:
• Explain the delay.
• Demonstrate prospects of success on the merits.

Case Law Analysis

Case 1: African Exploration Mining and Finance Corporation v Minister of Mineral Resources

• Facts: African Exploration challenged the Minister’s decision to convert mining rights but filed its review after the 180-day deadline without a condonation application.
• Court’s Decision:
• The application was dismissed because no formal condonation request was submitted.
• The court emphasized that condonation is a procedural prerequisite – failure to apply for it invalidates the entire review.

Case 2: Datacentrix (Pty) Ltd v SANParks and Others

Facts: Datacentrix sought to review a tender award but raised condonation only in reply papers, not in its founding affidavit.

• Court’s Decision:
• The application failed because condonation must be explicitly requested upfront.
• Raising it later deprived respondents of a fair chance to respond, causing prejudice.
• Courts may allow late condonation applications only in exceptional circumstances (none existed here).

Key Takeaways

1. Strict Procedural Compliance:
• Condonation applications must be included in founding papers and address both the delay’s explanation and case merits.
• Courts prioritize procedural fairness and certainty in administrative decisions.
2. Interests of Justice Test:
• Factors include the delay’s length, reasons, and potential prejudice to parties.
3. Recent Clarifications:
• The 180-day period begins when reasons are sufficiently detailed to enable a challenge, not when a party is satisfied with them.

This framework ensures accountability in administrative processes while balancing litigants’ rights to challenge unlawful decisions. Courts consistently enforce procedural rigor to maintain legal certainty and fairness.