In Nkosi v Johannesburg Municipality, Nkosi requested access to the job evaluation and re-grading records in terms of PAIA. The Johannesburg Municipality refused their request.

Who should care about this judgment and why?

  • Employees and workers’ trade unions because you should demonstrate that you are entitled to access job evaluation records if you request it.
  • Employers because if your employee can demonstrate their entitlement to access these records, you might have to grant access

What could you do about it?

  • Read the full judgment by downloading it.
  • Access other relevant PAIA judgments by joining the Michalsons Access to Information programme.

Our insights on the judgment

The judgment clarifies that the exclusionary provisions of section 7 of PAIA even apply to attempts to obtain “pre-action discovery”. It does so by emphasising the need to balance the right of access to information with other legal considerations, such as the rules of discovery in litigation. While PAIA guarantees the right of access to information, it does not override established legal procedures and safeguards, as shown by how the Court interpreted section 7.

Digest

Nkosi, represented by the South African Municipal Workers Union (SAMWU), requested job evaluation records from the Johannesburg Municipality. This request stemmed from Nkosi’s grievances regarding his colleagues’ job promotions, which he deemed unprocedural and irregular. Despite engaging in a grievance procedure, arbitration, and obtaining a ruling that only a court of law could declare the promotions unlawful, Nkosi sought access to the job evaluation records to further his case.

The Court’s decision

The judge considered whether the request for access to the documents fell within the exclusion outlined in section 7 of PAIA, which deals with records requested for criminal or civil proceedings after the commencement of proceedings. The Johannesburg Municipality argued that the exclusion applied, which relieved them of the obligation to provide the requested information. The Court noted that the request occurred within the context of ongoing litigation. Referring to precedents and legal principles, the Court concluded that the exclusion under section 7 applied even to attempts to obtain “pre-action discovery.” Therefore, the Court dismissed Nkosi’s request, stating that he failed to demonstrate entitlement to the documents.

Order

The Court dismissed the application with costs.

Details of Kanyi Ilanga Trading v Stoltz

  • Universal citation: [2024] ZAGPJHC 258
  • Case number: 2023/066724
  • Full name: Nkosi v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Please note: This judgment summary is not intended for a general audience. It is specifically drafted for the members of the Michalsons Access to Information programme.