As stated by the SCA, section 33(2) of the Constitution imposes a duty on public administrators to give written reasons to those whose rights have been adversely affected by administrative action. This constitutional obligation is given effect in the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000, which sets out that any person whose rights have been materially and adversely affected by administrative action and who has not been given reasons for the decision, is entitled to demand reasons for the administrator’s decision.

In such instances, the failure to give reasons is fatal and dispositive of the matter but, as held by the SCA, it must consider the appropriateness of the High Court substituting its decision for that of the administrator. In the High Court, the court ruled in favour of the owner of the property by declaring the Municipality’s classification invalid and substituted it with a classification as “blocks of flats”, effectively reducing the service charges.

The SCA, while confirming the court’s authority to review administrative decisions, re-emphasised the need for caution in substituting administrative decisions with judicial ones. With reference to the Constitutional Court in Trencon Construction (Pty) Limited v Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Limited and Another [2015] ZACC 22; 2015 (5) SA 245 (CC); 2015 (10) BCLR 1199 (CC), the court stated that:

“It suffices to state that remittal is almost always the prudent and proper course. Appropriate deference ought to be afforded to the administrator. Whether a court was in as good a position as the administrator to make the decision and whether the decision was a foregone conclusion are two factors that had to be considered cumulatively. Other relevant factors include delay, bias or incompetence on the part of the administrator.”

Accordingly, in the absence of crucial information (as in this case) the court a quo was not in a position to make a definitive judgment.

In the premises and in most administrative reviews, the prudent course of action is to remit the matter to the administrative body for reconsideration which ensures that administrative authorities have an opportunity to rectify any deficiencies in their decisions and to provide the necessary reasons.

This case underscores the role of the court in reviewing administrative decisions. While the court possesses the authority to review and, in exceptional cases, substitute administrative decisions, it does so cautiously and with due regard for the expertise of municipal authorities.

Courts must exercise this power judiciously and not overreach their judicial oversight. This safeguards the principles of transparency, accountability, and justice in administrative actions.