Administrative Discretion and Lawfulness
Reason, Purpose, and Motive behind Decisions
Authorization empowers administrators with discretion, but this discretion is not absolute. It is fundamentally limited by the reason, purpose, and motive behind their decisions, ensuring that administrative actions are aligned with the legislative intent and public interest.
Example: In the context of an indigent application, an administrator is authorized to consider various factors such as the applicant's income, assets, and other relevant financial information to decide on the approval or decline of the application. This decision-making process must adhere strictly to the guidelines and criteria established by the relevant policies and regulations.
Decisions cannot be based on unauthorized reasons: Decisions must be firmly grounded in the authorized reasons and criteria. It is impermissible for an administrator to base their decisions on factors or considerations that are not explicitly sanctioned by the empowering legislation or relevant policies.
Lawfulness protects administrator's freedom to act with the right reason, purpose, and motive. Courts are unlikely to interfere with such decisions, provided that these actions are within legal and ethical boundaries, reinforcing the principle of legality in administrative actions.
Discretionary powers are limited to the purpose for which the power was granted. This confinement ensures that administrators do not exceed their authority and that their actions are consistent with the specific objectives of the enabling legislation.
Example Question: Peter cannot take Minty's single mother status with five kids into consideration when the policy states he may only make the decision based on the applicant's current asset value and monthly income. This underscores the importance of adhering to the defined criteria and avoiding considerations that fall outside the scope of authorized factors.
Grounds of review related to reason, purpose, and motive under PAJA:
Unauthorized reason:
Ulterior purpose or motive:
Bad faith:
The authorized motive, purpose, or reason is required, despite intentions behind administrative action. Even with good intentions, administrative actions must align with the authorized reasons and purposes to maintain legality and fairness.
Omissions
Administrators have a duty to act in certain situations, as specified in empowering legislation. This duty ensures that administrators proactively fulfill their responsibilities and do not neglect their mandated actions.
Failure to act is reviewable under PAJA section .
Time frames for action:
Empowering provisions may set specific timeframes (e.g., 30 days). These prescribed timeframes create a legal obligation for administrators to act within the stipulated period.
If no timeframe is specified, a "reasonable time" is assumed, determined case-by-case. The determination of what constitutes a "reasonable time" depends heavily on the specific circumstances, the nature of the task, and the potential impact of the delay.
Example Question: Peter must make a decision on Minti's application in 30 days. If he makes the decision after 30 days, it could be seen as an omission and be reviewable. This illustrates the importance of adhering to specified timeframes to avoid potential legal challenges.
Changing a Decision
Funktus euficchio: once a decision is made, it can only be altered if the administrator has authorization to do so. This principle ensures stability and predictability in administrative decision-making.
Without authorization, actions are reviewable under PAJA section .
Changing a defective decision requires:
Notice to the affected person.
Opportunity for the person to be heard.
Some sort of process must be followed.
Formally prescribed within that empowering provision
Policy or standard operating procedure in a municipality.
Section of the Interpretation Act: Unless the contrary intention appears, the power to make a decision includes the power to rescind, revoke, or amend it, provided preconditions are met. This provision grants administrators the flexibility to correct or modify decisions when necessary, subject to certain limitations.
Identity of the Administrator
Empowering provisions usually specify a specific office authorized to act (e.g., municipal official, mayor). This specificity ensures accountability and clarity in the delegation of authority.
Decisions must be made by the authorized person or body; otherwise, it may be reviewed under PAJA section . Actions taken by unauthorized individuals are considered unlawful and subject to judicial review.
Authorized Bodies
Legislation may authorize institutions or bodies (e.g., municipal council) to make decisions. The lawful establishment and functioning of these bodies are essential for the validity of their decisions.
Entities must be correctly/legally constituted; otherwise, their decisions are unlawful and reviewable. Proper legal constitution is a prerequisite for the exercise of administrative authority.
Delegation
Action taken by a delegated authority is lawful only if authorized. The scope and extent of the delegation must be clearly defined and authorized to maintain legal validity.
If empowering provisions do not expressly authorize delegation, you need to look at the degree of the devolution of power, the importance of the original delegate, the complexity and the breadth of the discretion, the impact of that power, and the practical necessities.
Courts may accept tacit delegation if:
Only a part of the original power is delegated.
The original holder retains some control.
Due to practical necessities.
Ground for Review: PAJA
Influence and Advice
Relevant decisions must be made by the administrator themselves or the person to whom it was delegated themselves, not just a rubber stamp. Administrators must exercise independent judgment and not merely act as conduits for external influence.
Administrators should not be discouraged from seeking advice or using guidelines. Seeking expert advice and utilizing established guidelines can enhance the quality and rationality of administrative decisions.
due influence can open your decision to a review. (e.g., blind follow a policy or standard) Decisions influenced by undue pressure or bias are subject to review and potential invalidation.
Prescribed Procedure
Administrators must follow the process set out in the empowering provision. Adherence to prescribed procedures ensures fairness, transparency, and consistency in administrative action.
PAJA section requires compliance with prescribed processes.
"Must" indicates a mandatory step, while "may" indicates discretion. The distinction between mandatory and discretionary steps is critical in determining the legality of administrative actions.
Deviations from prescribed procedures may not automatically render administrative action reviewable. Factors to consider:
Whether an irregularity occurred.
Materiality of the deviation.
Compliance with the process's purpose.
Conditions
Conditions for decisions set out in empowering provisions must be adhered to. Compliance with these conditions is essential for lawful administrative action.
Mistake of Fact
A decision based on a material mistake of fact is reviewable. A flawed factual basis can undermine the validity and fairness of administrative decisions.
The mistake should have been made on the material facts. The mistake must pertain to critical facts that influenced the decision-making process.
Reasonableness
PAJA section allows for the review of administrative action that is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have exercised the power or performed the function. The standard of reasonableness serves as a benchmark for evaluating the rationality and justifiability of administrative actions.
Reasons guide us in deciding whether the administrative action was reviewable. Clear and logical reasons are essential for demonstrating the reasonableness of administrative decisions.
A reasonable person is the the general person on the street with an average intellect, with an average education that knows about as much about law as the average person would. This concept provides a standardized measure for assessing the rationality of administrative actions.
In order to guide us it's good to consider:
The nature of the decision
The identity and the expertise of the decision maker,
The range of factors relevant to the decision,
The reasons given for the decision,
Competeing interest involved,
And the impact of the decision on the lives and the well-being of those affected.
In instances that rationality is not evident with the purpose for which it was taken then the decision is not said to be rational either is it enough consideration given.
Rationality is also required in process,
So you want to ensure that everutubg done must be done to achieve the porpsoe (I.e consulting with someone you give to review the said books at the library).
A three-stage inquiry for process evaluation includes whether the facts rationally relate to the purpose of the procedure.
Proportionality
Section 36 of the Constitution should be kept in mind as notied in the Bil of Rights.
This will help demonstrate wether or not this process is in line with the constitution.
Vagueness
All of the laws and legislation should at least be clear to understand to citizens.
This includes rules of requirements for licences etc.
All of these said things should align well with eachother where one does not contradict the other otherwise this will lead to vague laws that open the door to a review.
Procedural Fairness
Background prior 1994.
Adminstrative decisions where only fair if they complied with the riles of natual justice (Audiu Autom Bartem I.e give both sides a story.
and Miyamudic in Saith Causa I.e cannot be a judge of yout own cause).
This principle is still adopted today in procedural fairness.
Decisions Effecting one Person.
This appies when an administrative decision afects any Person, has a material and adverse efefct which afefcts rights to legitimate expectaions.
There at thee key points
What kind of Person are we talking about
Material and adverse efefcts and
Legal expectancy
The decision and afefct the process should not only trivial but substantially harmful/efefctive enough to say that has material harm to that particular Individual.
Constitutional law, commercial law, criminal law et are a few examples of common law rights.
These at least meet the minimum requirements for prodeccrual fairness:
Flexibility
There is to keep in mind that procedral fairness will difef from one instance to the next so there is to note what wikk work best.
There has to be adeqate inforamtion or a timeous notide period given when communication is required so its important to consider what is a relative consent.
A Reasonaonable opportunity to make represetnatnios should given.
This also applies for time frame.
A clear statement of adminstratie acrtions should be given.
Including
Who's going to make the decision
On what Legal and actual bases
Review or internal appeal
The people being are affetcted must al least no that there entited to ask for a reason why they decision was made to better understand their rights.
There is the right in terms of section 3 part 5 to have adminstratprers follow a fair but difefrent prcideddure.
Decisions that Efefct on the general Public.
It can only be said to be a general pulic impact if all memebers of its class are infleuced by whatever changes that is made equal to one another.
In terms of Section 4 of the Baja , These proceudre are not to be engaged on one on one cases but more so of a collective point for all afftected to be engaged rather than one person .
The following requiremtns should be taken when dealing with a large populace.
Holding Public Inquireis.
This is usually done in a public forum.
An administer must decide to ensure fairness whether its worth while doing it for said public good.
The report is to contain the requierd process , reasonings which should be forwrded or comunicatied to all afftected parties.
This should incluee all necassary inforamtion to further engage with said population in question.
What about if its not in a public domain or the best route is to do it online
Or you are to follow a notice as the most appropirate route
(Where notice is given but coment is not required)
( Where notice and comment are requierd)
+ section 1 of the administration law also allows for you to follo w a fair but difefrent means to obtain the necesary means to reach procedual procrument.
This can also fall under the rules of Biased were this means those making the rules did not meet the requirements of a Open and fair minded approch.
Section 3 states that it s not necassary to prove actual bais. it is to only show that there is percpetio or reasoonabe understioding from those viewing is that bais that is taking place.
It's not that its only based on an understanding but what's important is the preicpetion of that individual for example if someones financial needs or familstsnds to benfit from the decisions made.
REASONS
Role of reason in just admnistartive action. how we can retuest reason.
who acn access and the dury on adminstrator?
Reasons are not only useful in one instance but severa points where for isntnace it allows accountaility and transpency.
It enhanced legitamacy from adminsrtate.
Its improves the quality iof decsion making where withought reason this would prove to be difefcult.
It is important as it allows a path to judicial review, however some drwback of the resons will make the adminsatrrator have a large workload