What documents must be provided by a decision maker in terms of Rule 53 of the High Court Rules?

In a recent case the applicants, a group of aviation-related businesses operating at Wonderboom National Airport, sought to compel the City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (the City) to provide additional financial records under Rule 53(1)(b). The applicants challenged the City’s decision to adopt the Medium-Term Revenue and Expenditure Framework (MTREF) 2021/2022 budget, which removed discounts on training fees for aircrew at the airport. The applicants argued that the financial records provided by the City are incomplete, as they lack source documents necessary to cross-reference figures in the financial statements. The City contends that the requested documents are irrelevant to the review and beyond the scope of the decision under review.

The City challenged the Court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the applicants failed to institute the review within the 180-day limit prescribed by the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) and that the delay was unreasonable. 

The applicants argued that the review was also based on the principle of legality, which does not have the same time limitations as PAJA. 

The Court found that the delay, while prima facie unreasonable, was largely attributable to both parties’ mistaken belief that an internal appeal was available under the Municipal Systems Act. 

The Court also considered factors such as the complexity of the decision, the lack of prejudice to the City, and the public interest in finality, concluding that the delay was not unreasonable in the circumstances. 

Regarding the request for additional documents, the Court held that Rule 53(1)(b) requires the City to provide the record of proceedings that was before the decision-maker at the time of the decision. 

The Court found that the requested source documents were not part of the record considered by the City in making the decision to adopt the MTREF budget. 

The Court noted that the applicants could seek further documents under Rule 35 once the pleadings in the review application were closed. 

The Court held that the applicants were not entitled to the requested source documents under Rule 53(1)(b), as they were not part of the record considered by the City in making the impugned decision. 

Therefore, the application to compel the City to provide the requested source documents was dismissed, each party is to pay its own costs. 

As such, and as always, I recommend to speak to an attorney on such a matter – Rule 53 is not a complex Rule, but whether you are the applicant or the respondent in such an application, a clear and previse understanding of what can be asked for, and what one is entitled to is necessary.

The content does not constitute legal advice, are not intended to be a substitute for legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Kindly contact us on info@cklaw.co.za or 021 556 9864 to speak to one of our attorneys.