Abstract
This note critically revisits the decision of the case, and particularly the normative content of section 50 of PAIA, and argues for the incorrectness of the decision of the court. In doing so, this note relies on earlier jurisprudence on the interpretation and application of the section 50 provision of PAIA. Part 1 provides a brief understanding of the facts of the case and the issues of law raised. Part 2 examines the reasoning of the judge as informed by other previous decisions. Part 3 analyses the judgment through a critical discussion of the normative content of sections 50 and 7(1) of PAIA, and its interpretation and application in other jurisprudence, in order to demonstrate the incorrectness of the decision in the Mahaeeane case. The last part of this note is a conclusion.
Highlights
In 2006, the Supreme Court of Appeal adopted a more flexible approach as the standard for the interpretation and application of section 50 of the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 (PAIA) – that is, that access to records held by private bodies should be given to a requester when reasonably required (see the case of Unitas Hospital v Van Wyk 2006 (4) SA 436 (SCA) par 6)
The fact that PAIA is meant to enable people to have access to information held by public and private bodies means that any judicial interpretation of the provisions of PAIA must be guided by its section 2
In the context of legislative interpretation, this note has clearly illustrated the wrongness of the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal in interpreting and applying section 50 of PAIA in the Mahaeeane case
Summary
In 2006, the Supreme Court of Appeal adopted a more flexible approach as the standard for the interpretation and application of section 50 (discussed in detail below) of the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 (PAIA) – that is, that access to records held by private bodies should be given to a requester when reasonably required (see the case of Unitas Hospital v Van Wyk 2006 (4) SA 436 (SCA) par 6). Private bodies are (proactively) required to disclose relevant information to the public upon request and information relating to their activities that is necessary for the exercise or protection of any rights, including the. The research of this case note was done during the author’s post-doctoral fellowship at North-West University.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
