Question 1 [40]
The attorneys representing the applicant parties in the Zimbabwean Exemption permit case before the High Court of South Africa, argued that the decision by Minister of Home Affairs, Dr Aaron Motsoaledi, not to extend the said permits, was unlawful. Furthermore, they argued that the Minister’s decision did not comply with the PAJA rules requiring prior consultation with the affected Zimbabwean nationals and that there was no public participation.
Discuss the rules of procedural fairness under the PAJA as applicable to the facts in the above case.

Question 2 [20]
As a departmental attorney in a public corporation, you have been requested by the internal disciplinary committee to provide a dossier containing a comprehensive legal write-up on the right to reason and departure from the requirement of providing a reason in terms of section 5(1) of PAJA.

Question 3 [20]
You are a newly appointed lecturer in law at the University of Ubuntu. You are scheduled to deliver a lecture to your Administrative Law class on the topic: ‘Lawfulness’. Write down concise notes, including all relevant case and legislative authorities, on lawfulness.

Question 4 [20]
Critically discuss the rule against bias.

Answers to Above Questions on Administrative Justice

Answer 1: The rules and principles of Administrative law in South Africa are set by the promotion of Administrative justice act (PAJA). In the given case scenario of the Zimbabwean exemption permit case, it is important to identify whether the Minister of Home Affairs follows the rules of procedural fairness as explained in the PAJA. This is evaluated as follows:

Get completed answers on the questions above on administrative justice as provided by the law experts of Student Life Saviour in South Africa.