- A Johannesburg law firm requested details about how the CCMA distributed legal work.
- The High Court in Johannesburg found that the CCMA’s response to the PAIA request was insufficient.
- The court ordered the CCMA to release the records and cover legal costs.
A Johannesburg law firm has won a court battle to obtain records showing how legal work was allocated by the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA).
Mudau and Netshipise Attorneys approached the High Court in Johannesburg after seeking information under the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) relating to legal instructions issued by the CCMA between 9 March 2021 and 27 June 2022.
The firm requested a comprehensive list of legal instructions issued during that period, the names of attorneys who received those instructions and a list of attorneys serving on the CCMA’s panel.
According to the judgment, the firm sought the information to establish whether it had received any instructions following its appointment to the panel and whether any remedies were available if no work had been allocated to it.
Request deemed refused
The CCMA did not respond to the request within the period prescribed by PAIA. As a result, the request was deemed refused. Mudau and Netshipise Attorneys subsequently lodged an internal appeal.
The firm argued that the CCMA also failed to notify it of the appeal outcome within the time required by the Act. The matter eventually came before Acting Judge S van Nieuwenhuizen in the High Court in Johannesburg.
The judge found that the information eventually supplied by the CCMA did not constitute an adequate response to the request. He said the information furnished in response to the PAIA request was “woefully inadequate”.
The judgment records that information was provided only after litigation had commenced and that the information supplied did not amount to a proper response to the original request.
CCMA opposes the application
The CCMA opposed the application and argued that it had substantially responded to the request. The institution further contended that some of the information sought involved personal information and that confidentiality considerations prevented disclosure.
According to the judgment, the CCMA also relied on provisions of PAIA dealing with grounds for refusing access to information.
Judge Van Nieuwenhuizen rejected those arguments, saying that any firm or individual that makes itself available to perform legal work on behalf of a public institution should expect that information relating to that work may be disclosed in response to a lawful request.
The court found that the CCMA had failed to establish a valid basis for withholding the records sought by the firm.
Judge grants relief
In granting the application, Judge Van Nieuwenhuizen found that no valid pleaded defence had been raised to justify refusing access to the information.
The judge held, "In the absence of a valid defence and following consideration of the provisions of PAIA, the application should be granted."
The judgment also dealt with the issue of costs. Judge Van Nieuwenhuizen found that the circumstances justified a punitive costs order and referred to the CCMA’s failure to respond timeously to the request as well as aspects of its conduct during the litigation.
Order
The court reviewed and set aside the CCMA’s deemed refusal of the PAIA request. The CCMA was ordered to provide a comprehensive list of all legal instructions issued to attorneys between 9 March 2021 and 27 June 2022, disclose the names of attorneys who received those instructions and provide a list of attorneys serving on its panel.
The institution was further ordered to pay the costs of the application on the attorney-and-client scale.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
