⋆ ⋆ ⋆
]]
ADL2601: Administrative Law
OCT/NOV Examination 2026 — Covering 2023 to 2025 Past Papers
⋆ ⋄ ⋆ ⋄ ⋆ ⋄ ⋆ ⋄ ⋆
Law — University of South Africa (UNISA)
Exam Revision Guide
ADL2601
Module Code:
Administrative Law
Module Name:
Oct/Nov 2023, Oct/Nov 2024, Oct/Nov 2025
Exam Papers:
Oct/Nov 2026 Examination
Prepared For:
100 per paper
Total Marks:
3 hours 15 minutes
Duration:
This guide covers all four questions from each exam paper. Focus on understanding
principles, not memorisation.
Exam Revision Notes | ADL2601 | 2023–2025
,ADL2601 | Exam Revision Administrative Law — Oct/Nov 2023–2025
PART 1: OCT/NOV 2023 EXAMINATION
University Examinations · ADL2601 Administrative Law · 100 Marks
Question 1 (2023) [25 marks]
(1.1) [7 marks]
Question: Read the following scenario and answer the questions that follow.
Mr Thomas Modiga, a Zimbabwean national, had been granted an asylum seeker permit
by the Department of Home Affairs. After he publicly criticised the department’s delays
and alleged corruption, the Director-General, acting on behalf of the Minister, revoked his
permit without giving any prior notice or an opportunity to be heard. No written reasons
were provided for this decision.
Identify the organ(s) of state in the above scenario and discuss what constitutes an “or-
gan of state” as defined in section 239 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa,
1996. (7)
Answer:
Key Concept
Section 239 of the Constitution defines an “organ of state” as: (a) any department
of state or administration in the national, provincial or local sphere of government; or
(b) any other functionary or institution that exercises a power or performs a function
in terms of the Constitution or a provincial constitution, or exercises a public power or
performs a public function in terms of any legislation.
The organs of state identified in the scenario are:
• The Department of Home Affairs — a national government department falling squarely
within category (a) of s 239, as it is a department of state in the national sphere of gov-
ernment.
• The Director-General of the Department of Home Affairs — a functionary who
exercises a public power (revoking an asylum seeker permit) in terms of the Immigration
Act and related legislation, placing him within category (b) of s 239.
Page 2 of 42
,ADL2601 | Exam Revision Administrative Law — Oct/Nov 2023–2025
Both entities are therefore organs of state bound by the Constitution, PAJA, and the require-
ment to act lawfully, reasonably, and procedurally fairly.
Exam Tip
Always identify all organs of state in a scenario — examiners award marks for each one
correctly identified and briefly motivated. Quote s 239 by name.
(1.2) [10 marks]
Question: With reference to the scenario above, identify the administrative action
and provide the full statutory definition of “administrative action” as contained in section
1 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA). (10)
Answer:
The administrative action in the scenario is the revocation of Mr Modiga’s asylum
seeker permit by the Director-General.
Key Concept
Section 1 of PAJA defines “administrative action” as any decision taken, or any
failure to take a decision, by—
• an organ of state, when exercising a power in terms of the Constitution or a provin-
cial constitution; or
• exercising a public power or performing a public function in terms of any legisla-
tion; or
• a natural or juristic person, other than an organ of state, when exercising a public
power or performing a public function in terms of an empowering provision,
which adversely affects the rights of any person and which has a direct, external legal
effect, but does not include the various exclusions listed in s 1 (executive action,
legislative action, judicial functions, etc.).
Applying the definition: the Director-General is an organ of state exercising a public power
in terms of the Immigration Act (legislation). The revocation of the permit adversely affects
Mr Modiga’s rights (his right to remain in South Africa, to access banking and employment),
and has a direct, external legal effect on him. None of the exclusions apply. The revocation
therefore qualifies as administrative action under PAJA.
Page 3 of 42
,ADL2601 | Exam Revision Administrative Law — Oct/Nov 2023–2025
(1.3) [8 marks]
Question: Was the revocation of Mr Modiga’s asylum seeker permit procedurally fair?
Discuss with reference to the relevant provisions of PAJA. (8)
Answer:
No, the revocation was not procedurally fair. Section 3(1) of PAJA provides that admin-
istrative action which materially and adversely affects the rights or legitimate expectations of
any person must be procedurally fair.
Section 3(2)(b) sets out the mandatory minimum requirements for procedural fairness:
• Adequate notice of the nature and purpose of the proposed administrative action — Mr
Modiga received no prior notice.
• A reasonable opportunity to make representations — he was given no opportunity
to respond before the decision was taken.
• A clear statement of the administrative action — the revocation appears to have
been communicated without clarity.
• Adequate notice of any right of review or internal appeal — not provided.
• Adequate notice of the right to request reasons in terms of s 5 — not provided.
The revocation failed on multiple fronts: no prior notice, no hearing, and no written reasons.
All of these breached s 3(2)(b) of PAJA, rendering the action procedurally unfair.
Watch Out
Do not confuse procedural fairness (the process followed) with substantive fairness (the
content/outcome of the decision). Procedural fairness is about what steps were followed
before the decision.
Page 4 of 42
,ADL2601 | Exam Revision Administrative Law — Oct/Nov 2023–2025
Question 2 (2023) [25 marks]
(2.1) [5 marks]
Question: List and briefly explain the three forms of abuse of power by an adminis-
trator in administrative law. (5)
Answer:
Key Concept
Abuse of power refers to situations where an administrator acts outside the permissi-
ble boundaries of their discretion, even if technically within the letter of the law. PAJA
and the common law identify three classic forms.
1. Exercising power for an unauthorised purpose (in fraudem legis): The administra-
tor uses a power granted by the empowering provision for a purpose other than the one
for which it was intended. Example: expropriating private property ostensibly for “public
use” but actually to benefit a private third party.
2. Bad faith / mala fides: The administrator acts with an improper motive or personal
agenda that has nothing to do with the objective the law intended. Example: revoking a
permit because the holder publicly criticised the department (as in Mr Modiga’s case).
3. Taking into account irrelevant considerations / ignoring relevant ones: The ad-
ministrator bases the decision on factors that the law does not authorise, or ignores fac-
tors the law requires to be considered. Example: refusing a building permit because the
applicant belongs to a rival political party.
Exam Tip
You need to be able to both name and briefly explain each form. One sentence of ex-
planation per form is sufficient for a 5-mark question.
Page 5 of 42
, ADL2601 | Exam Revision Administrative Law — Oct/Nov 2023–2025
(2.2) [8 marks]
Question: Explain the concept of lawful administrative action with reference to
section 6(2)(a) of PAJA, listing the grounds of review that relate to the decision-maker
(administrator). (8)
Answer:
Lawful administrative action requires that the administrator act within the authority
granted by the empowering legislation. An administrator who acts outside these boundaries
acts ultra vires. Section 6(2)(a) of PAJA provides the specific grounds of review relating to
the decision-maker:
• (i) Action was not authorised by the empowering provision (ultra vires): the
administrator had no legal authority to take the action.
• (ii) Administrator lacked the required qualifications: the person taking the deci-
sion did not meet the legal requirements for the role.
• (iii) Administrator exceeded geographical limits: the power was exercised outside
the territorial scope of the empowering provision.
• (iv) Administrator did not act in accordance with time provisions: the action
was taken outside a prescribed time limit.
• (v) Administrative action exceeds the objective/purpose of the empowering
provision: the decision goes beyond what the law was designed to achieve.
• (vi) Unauthorised delegation of power (delegatus non potest delegare): the adminis-
trator improperly delegated a power that had to be exercised personally.
• (vii) Rule against bias (nemo iudex in sua causa): the administrator had a per-
sonal interest in the outcome, compromising impartiality.
(2.3) [12 marks]
Question: Explain the concept of reasonable administrative action with reference
to section 6(2)(h) and section 6(2)(i) of PAJA, and discuss the test for reasonableness as
developed in Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs 2004 (4)
SA 490 (CC). (12)
Answer:
Page 6 of 42
]]
ADL2601: Administrative Law
OCT/NOV Examination 2026 — Covering 2023 to 2025 Past Papers
⋆ ⋄ ⋆ ⋄ ⋆ ⋄ ⋆ ⋄ ⋆
Law — University of South Africa (UNISA)
Exam Revision Guide
ADL2601
Module Code:
Administrative Law
Module Name:
Oct/Nov 2023, Oct/Nov 2024, Oct/Nov 2025
Exam Papers:
Oct/Nov 2026 Examination
Prepared For:
100 per paper
Total Marks:
3 hours 15 minutes
Duration:
This guide covers all four questions from each exam paper. Focus on understanding
principles, not memorisation.
Exam Revision Notes | ADL2601 | 2023–2025
,ADL2601 | Exam Revision Administrative Law — Oct/Nov 2023–2025
PART 1: OCT/NOV 2023 EXAMINATION
University Examinations · ADL2601 Administrative Law · 100 Marks
Question 1 (2023) [25 marks]
(1.1) [7 marks]
Question: Read the following scenario and answer the questions that follow.
Mr Thomas Modiga, a Zimbabwean national, had been granted an asylum seeker permit
by the Department of Home Affairs. After he publicly criticised the department’s delays
and alleged corruption, the Director-General, acting on behalf of the Minister, revoked his
permit without giving any prior notice or an opportunity to be heard. No written reasons
were provided for this decision.
Identify the organ(s) of state in the above scenario and discuss what constitutes an “or-
gan of state” as defined in section 239 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa,
1996. (7)
Answer:
Key Concept
Section 239 of the Constitution defines an “organ of state” as: (a) any department
of state or administration in the national, provincial or local sphere of government; or
(b) any other functionary or institution that exercises a power or performs a function
in terms of the Constitution or a provincial constitution, or exercises a public power or
performs a public function in terms of any legislation.
The organs of state identified in the scenario are:
• The Department of Home Affairs — a national government department falling squarely
within category (a) of s 239, as it is a department of state in the national sphere of gov-
ernment.
• The Director-General of the Department of Home Affairs — a functionary who
exercises a public power (revoking an asylum seeker permit) in terms of the Immigration
Act and related legislation, placing him within category (b) of s 239.
Page 2 of 42
,ADL2601 | Exam Revision Administrative Law — Oct/Nov 2023–2025
Both entities are therefore organs of state bound by the Constitution, PAJA, and the require-
ment to act lawfully, reasonably, and procedurally fairly.
Exam Tip
Always identify all organs of state in a scenario — examiners award marks for each one
correctly identified and briefly motivated. Quote s 239 by name.
(1.2) [10 marks]
Question: With reference to the scenario above, identify the administrative action
and provide the full statutory definition of “administrative action” as contained in section
1 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA). (10)
Answer:
The administrative action in the scenario is the revocation of Mr Modiga’s asylum
seeker permit by the Director-General.
Key Concept
Section 1 of PAJA defines “administrative action” as any decision taken, or any
failure to take a decision, by—
• an organ of state, when exercising a power in terms of the Constitution or a provin-
cial constitution; or
• exercising a public power or performing a public function in terms of any legisla-
tion; or
• a natural or juristic person, other than an organ of state, when exercising a public
power or performing a public function in terms of an empowering provision,
which adversely affects the rights of any person and which has a direct, external legal
effect, but does not include the various exclusions listed in s 1 (executive action,
legislative action, judicial functions, etc.).
Applying the definition: the Director-General is an organ of state exercising a public power
in terms of the Immigration Act (legislation). The revocation of the permit adversely affects
Mr Modiga’s rights (his right to remain in South Africa, to access banking and employment),
and has a direct, external legal effect on him. None of the exclusions apply. The revocation
therefore qualifies as administrative action under PAJA.
Page 3 of 42
,ADL2601 | Exam Revision Administrative Law — Oct/Nov 2023–2025
(1.3) [8 marks]
Question: Was the revocation of Mr Modiga’s asylum seeker permit procedurally fair?
Discuss with reference to the relevant provisions of PAJA. (8)
Answer:
No, the revocation was not procedurally fair. Section 3(1) of PAJA provides that admin-
istrative action which materially and adversely affects the rights or legitimate expectations of
any person must be procedurally fair.
Section 3(2)(b) sets out the mandatory minimum requirements for procedural fairness:
• Adequate notice of the nature and purpose of the proposed administrative action — Mr
Modiga received no prior notice.
• A reasonable opportunity to make representations — he was given no opportunity
to respond before the decision was taken.
• A clear statement of the administrative action — the revocation appears to have
been communicated without clarity.
• Adequate notice of any right of review or internal appeal — not provided.
• Adequate notice of the right to request reasons in terms of s 5 — not provided.
The revocation failed on multiple fronts: no prior notice, no hearing, and no written reasons.
All of these breached s 3(2)(b) of PAJA, rendering the action procedurally unfair.
Watch Out
Do not confuse procedural fairness (the process followed) with substantive fairness (the
content/outcome of the decision). Procedural fairness is about what steps were followed
before the decision.
Page 4 of 42
,ADL2601 | Exam Revision Administrative Law — Oct/Nov 2023–2025
Question 2 (2023) [25 marks]
(2.1) [5 marks]
Question: List and briefly explain the three forms of abuse of power by an adminis-
trator in administrative law. (5)
Answer:
Key Concept
Abuse of power refers to situations where an administrator acts outside the permissi-
ble boundaries of their discretion, even if technically within the letter of the law. PAJA
and the common law identify three classic forms.
1. Exercising power for an unauthorised purpose (in fraudem legis): The administra-
tor uses a power granted by the empowering provision for a purpose other than the one
for which it was intended. Example: expropriating private property ostensibly for “public
use” but actually to benefit a private third party.
2. Bad faith / mala fides: The administrator acts with an improper motive or personal
agenda that has nothing to do with the objective the law intended. Example: revoking a
permit because the holder publicly criticised the department (as in Mr Modiga’s case).
3. Taking into account irrelevant considerations / ignoring relevant ones: The ad-
ministrator bases the decision on factors that the law does not authorise, or ignores fac-
tors the law requires to be considered. Example: refusing a building permit because the
applicant belongs to a rival political party.
Exam Tip
You need to be able to both name and briefly explain each form. One sentence of ex-
planation per form is sufficient for a 5-mark question.
Page 5 of 42
, ADL2601 | Exam Revision Administrative Law — Oct/Nov 2023–2025
(2.2) [8 marks]
Question: Explain the concept of lawful administrative action with reference to
section 6(2)(a) of PAJA, listing the grounds of review that relate to the decision-maker
(administrator). (8)
Answer:
Lawful administrative action requires that the administrator act within the authority
granted by the empowering legislation. An administrator who acts outside these boundaries
acts ultra vires. Section 6(2)(a) of PAJA provides the specific grounds of review relating to
the decision-maker:
• (i) Action was not authorised by the empowering provision (ultra vires): the
administrator had no legal authority to take the action.
• (ii) Administrator lacked the required qualifications: the person taking the deci-
sion did not meet the legal requirements for the role.
• (iii) Administrator exceeded geographical limits: the power was exercised outside
the territorial scope of the empowering provision.
• (iv) Administrator did not act in accordance with time provisions: the action
was taken outside a prescribed time limit.
• (v) Administrative action exceeds the objective/purpose of the empowering
provision: the decision goes beyond what the law was designed to achieve.
• (vi) Unauthorised delegation of power (delegatus non potest delegare): the adminis-
trator improperly delegated a power that had to be exercised personally.
• (vii) Rule against bias (nemo iudex in sua causa): the administrator had a per-
sonal interest in the outcome, compromising impartiality.
(2.3) [12 marks]
Question: Explain the concept of reasonable administrative action with reference
to section 6(2)(h) and section 6(2)(i) of PAJA, and discuss the test for reasonableness as
developed in Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs 2004 (4)
SA 490 (CC). (12)
Answer:
Page 6 of 42
