This is an index of the legal resources related to the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 as at 6 September 2008.

General

[EH van Coller De Jure (2006) 39(1) p163 – “Transparency and Access to Documents: A General Principle of European Community Law?“]

[M Richter LDD (2005) 9/2 p219 – Affirmation to realisation of the right of access to information]

[D Lewis ILJ(UK) (2006) 35:324-328 – `Whistleblowers, Reasonable Belief and Data Protection Issues’]

[S Bosch SALJ (2006) 123(4) p615 – “IDASA v ANC : an opportunity lost for truly promoting access to information”]

Private bodies – PAIA s53(1)

Supreme Court of Appeal

Clutchco (Pty) Ltd v Davis (GF 5570) [Comrie AJA, 24.03.2005]

[2005] 2 All SA 225 & [2005] JOL 14039 (SCA)

[Appeal allowed – circumstances must warrant access]

High Court

IDASA v African National Congress (GF 5726) [Griesel [BM] J, 20.04.2005]

[2005] 3 All SA 45 & 2005 (10) BCLR 995 (HC-CPD)

[Application refused – Constitution s32 – no independent cause of action]

Journal Articles

[D du Toit ILJ (2006) 27/7 pp 1311-1341 – “The Evolution of the Concept of `Unfair Discrimination’ in South African Labour Law” & IDASA v ANC (HC)]

[N Locke SAMLJ (2005) 17(2) p221 – Accounting records of company]

Public bodies – PAIA s18(1), s36, s37 & s82

Supreme Court of Appeal

Claase v Information Officer of SAA (Pty) Ltd (GF 6419) [Combrinck AJA, 30.11.2006]

[2006] SCA 163 (RSA); 2007 (5) SA 469 & [2006] JOL 18804 (SCA)

[Appeal allowed  – former employer ordered to produce airline records – failure to do so inexplicable]

Mittalsteel SA Ltd v Hlatshwayo (GF 6312) [Conradie JA, 31.08.2006]

[2006] SCA 94 (RSA); [2007] 1 All SA 1; 2007 (4) BCLR 386; 2007 (1) SA 66 & [2006] JOL 18184 (SCA)

[Appeal disallowed – public body at relevant time – information to be provided – time allowed to find documents]

MEC, Roads & Public Works v Intertrade Two (Pty) Ltd (GF 6045) [Maya AJA, 27.03.06]

[2006] SCA 34 & [2006] JOL 17048/17346 (RSA)

[Appeal disallowed – s7(1) – uniform rule 53(1)(b) – tenderer – ‘requested’ prior to review]

Unitas Hospital v Van Wyk (GF 6044) [Brand JA, 27.03.2006]

[2006] SCA 32 (RSA); [2006] 4 All SA 231 & 2006 (4) SA 436 (SCA)

[Appeal allowed – s50 – `required’ for exercise of protection of right – pre-action production]

Transnet Ltd v SA Metal Machinery Co (Pty) Ltd (GF 5827) [Howie P, 29.11.2005]

(2006) 1 All SA 352; 2006 (4) BCLR 473 & [2005] JOL 16170 (SCA)

[Appeal disallowed – information to be supplied – unsuccessful tenderer]

Minister, Prov & L Govt, RSA v Unrecognised TLLP(S) (GF 5460) [Jafta AJA, 29.09.04]

[2005] 1 All SA 559 & [2004] JOL 13034 (SCA)

[Appeal disallowed – entitlement to information – report not “obtained”]

High Court

Kiva v Minister of Correctional Services (GF 6361) [Plasket J, 27.07.2006]

[2007] 1 BLLR 86; (2007) 28 ILJ 597 & [2006] JOL 18512 (HC-ECD)

[Application granted  – failure to promote – reasons must be provided – PAJA s 74 & PAIA s 5 applicable]

Marr v MEC Dept of Health, EC (GF 6100) [Matthee AJ, 10.04.2006]

[2006] JOL 17212 (HC-SECLD)

[Clinical records eventually supplied – issue of possible contempt of court against MEC referred to Director of Public Prosecutions – costs granted against MEC de bonis propriis]

Earthlife Africa (CT Branch) v Eskom Holdings Ltd (GF 6227) [Fevrier AJ, 14.03.2006]

[2006] 2 All SA 632 (HC-WLD)

[Leave to appeal refused – research & development re nuclear energy – information withheld – need to balance rights – disclosure & privacy]

Paruk & Partners v eThekwini Municipality (GF 5906) [Hugo J, 1.12.2005]

[2005] JOL 16287 (HC-DCLD)

[Application granted – engineer – information to be supplied – computer generated]

Claase v Information Officer of SAA (GF 5742) [Seriti [WL] J, 2.09.2005]

[2005] JOL 15414 (HC-TPD)

[Application refused – pilot – no right needing protection – information supplied – overturned on appeal to SCA – see GF 6419 above]

Hlatswayo v Iscor Ltd (GF 5552) [Van der Westhuizen J, 26.01.2005]

[2005] JOL 13726 (HC-TPD)

[Being a public body must grant access to information]

Treatment Action Campaign v Minister of Health (GF 5518) [Ranchod AJ, 14.12.2004]

[2005] JOL 13406 (HC-TPD)

[Costs awarded to TAC on attorney & client scale]

Parapanov v Minister of Home Affairs (GF 5678) [Claassen J, 16.07.1999]

2000 (4) BCLR 393 (HC-WLD)

[Right to be provided with information – refugee]

Rèan Intrntnl SC (Pty) Ltd v Mpumalanga GB (GF 5677) [Kirk-Cohen ADJP, 30.04.99]

1998 (8) BCLR 918 (HC-TPD)

[Right to be provided with written reasons]

ABBM Printing & Pblshng (Pty) Ltd v Transnet Ltd (GF 5679) [Schwartzman J, 1.08.97]

1997 (10) BCLR 1429 (HC-WLD)

[Right to be provided with written reasons and access to information]

Labour Court

NATU  v S-G, Dept of Education & Culture, KZN (GF 6963) [Pillay J, 19.02.2008]

(2008) 29 ILJ 1727 & [2008] JOL 21521 (LC)

[Refused application for access to information – LRA sec 16 should have been used and not PAIA or Constitution – in addition internal remedies not exhausted – see also GF 6122 (LC) below]

Journal Articles

[J Grogan EL (2007) 23/1 p 21 – ‘Reasons, please!’ Kiva (LC) – GF 6361]

[J Grogan LLSG 12/2006 p6 – Kiva (HC) – GF 6361]

[Ntlama Stell LR (2003) 14(2) p273]

[BV Roberts THRHR (2002) 65(3) p339]

[MP Ferreira THRHR (2002) 65(3) p354]