Assignment 1 Semester 1 2026
Unique number:
Due Date: March 2026
This document includes:
Helpful answers and guidelines
Detailed explanations and/ or calculations
References
Connect with the tutor on
+27 81 278 3372
, QUESTION 1: PAIA AND JUDICIAL ACCESS RIGHTS (2 ANSWERS PROVIDED)
In Brümmer v Minister for Social Development and Others the Constitutional Court
had to confront a recurring constitutional tension: the state must give practical effect
to the right of access to information in section 32 of the Constitution, but legislation
regulating that right may include procedural gateways that can either facilitate or
frustrate access. The case turned on whether PAIA’s strict litigation time bar in
section 78(2) (then requiring court applications ―within 30 days‖) struck a
constitutionally permissible balance between efficient administration and meaningful
enforcement of section 32 rights.1
The Court began by locating the dispute within a broader enforcement framework.
Mr Brümmer, a journalist, requested tender-related records from the Department of
Social Development under PAIA to report accurately on a matter of public concern.2
After internal refusal and dismissal of his internal appeal, he approached the High
Court outside the 30-day period and sought condonation. The High Court refused
condonation, yet also declared section 78(2) unconstitutional, triggering confirmation
proceedings in the Constitutional Court.3 The Constitutional Court treated the matter
as one implicating both section 32 (substantive access to information) and section 34
(access to courts), because procedural rules that make enforcement practically
impossible do not merely regulate a right; they can amount to a denial of it.4
A key interpretive step was resolving PAIA’s internal inconsistency about time
periods. Section 77(5)(c)(i) indicated 60 days in some circumstances, while section
78(2) stated 30 days. The Court held the statute could not be harmonised on this
point and that section 78(2), housed in the chapter specifically governing court
applications, had to prevail as the operative provision.5 This clarified the
constitutional target: the 30-day time bar in section 78(2) was the real procedural
limitation shaping access to judicial remedy. The Court’s approach here matters for
reconciliation: it refused to evade the constitutional question by choosing the
1
Brümmer v Minister for Social Development and Others (CCT 25/09) [2009] ZACC 21, 2009 (6) SA
323 (CC) (13 August 2009) (Brümmer) para 1.
2
Brümmer (n 1) paras 1–6.
3
Brümmer (n 1) paras 7–16.
4
Brümmer (n 1) paras 2–3, 64–66.
5
Brümmer (n 1) paras 52–63.
© Study Shack 2026. All rights Reserved +27 81 278 3372
, ―friendlier‖ reading, and instead confronted the limitation as Parliament had actually
framed it.
On constitutionality, the Court applied its established time-bar jurisprudence: time
limits can serve legitimate purposes such as finality and preventing stale disputes,
but they are unconstitutional if they do not afford an adequate and fair opportunity to
seek judicial redress.6 Importantly, the Court did not treat ―access to court‖ as a
purely formal entitlement. The question was practical: can ordinary requesters
realistically take the necessary steps (consider reasons, obtain legal advice, secure
representation and funding, prepare papers) within the time allowed?7 The Court
used SAHA’s experience, over 1 000 PAIA requests, with repeated need for
condonation when litigating, as concrete evidence that the 30-day window routinely
forced litigants into costly, uncertain condonation applications and thus undermined
effective enforcement.8 This grounded assessment shows how the Court reconciled
rights with procedure: it measured procedure against lived administrative and
litigation realities, not against abstract notions of ―promptness‖.
The Court held that section 78(2) limited section 34, and in effect also limited section
32, because where judicial enforcement is practically blocked, the underlying access
right becomes hollow.9 The respondents argued that any harshness was mitigated
by the court’s power to condone late filings, but the Court rejected the idea that
condonation ―saves‖ an otherwise oppressive procedural regime. What matters is the
availability of a real opportunity to litigate; a system that predictably pushes most
applicants into condonation adds cost, complexity and risk, and therefore constricts
rights.10 The reconciliation here is principled: PAIA may regulate access, but the
regulation must be structured to enable, not routinely obstruct, the right’s vindication.
The Court then assessed justification under section 36. While it accepted that time
bars can protect the interests of justice, it found the government had not put forward
sufficient factual material to justify why PAIA litigants should be held to a uniquely
compressed period, especially compared to other review contexts such as PAJA’s
6
Brümmer (n 1) paras 64–68; see also Mohlomi v Minister of Defence 1997 (1) SA 124 (CC) para 11.
7
Brümmer (n 1) paras 69–72.
8
Brümmer (n 1) para 71.
9
Brümmer (n 1) paras 72–75.
10
Brümmer (n 1) para 75.
© Study Shack 2026. All rights Reserved +27 81 278 3372