It is generally presumed by the public that when a judgment is handed down in a court of law, the judgment must be accompanied by full reasons for the conclusion reached by the court, including, findings on the facts, findings on the law, and finally, the application of the law to the facts.
This would seem to be an exercise of common sense: notwithstanding, judicial decisions do occasionally slip through without proper explanation, particularly when such decisions deal with matters which are not central to a case but nevertheless are a part of the fabric of the case, and relevant to its outcome.
Bound By the Rule of Law
In a recent unanimous Constitutional Court judgment (Prithilal v Akani Egoli (Pty) Ltd & another (CCT290/24) [2025] ZACC 5 (24 April 2025)), the Court referred favourably to an earlier Constitutional Court judgment (Mphahlele v First National Bank of South Africa Limited [1999] ZACC 1).
In the Prithilal judgment, the Constitutional Court reaffirmed that the Judiciary was bound by the rule of law, a founding value proclaimed in Section 1 of the Constitution.
Section 1 of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that:
“The Republic of South Africa is one sovereign democratic state founded on the following values:
- …
- …
- Supremacy of the constitution and the rule of law,
- ….
In Mphahlele (quoted in approval by the Constitutional Court in Prithilal), the Constitutional Court held, in respect of Section 1(c), as follows (the paragraphs and numbering are the writer’s):
- The rule of law undoubtedly requires Judges not to act arbitrarily and to be accountable.
- The manner in which [Judges] ordinarily account for their decisions is by furnishing reasons.
- This serves a number of purposes:
- It explains to the parties, and to the public at large which has an interest in courts being open and transparent, why a case is decided as it is.
- It is a discipline which curbs arbitrary judicial decisions.
- It is essential for the appeal process, enabling the losing party to make an informed decision as to whether or not to appeal or, where necessary, seek leave to appeal.
- It assists the appeal Court to decide whether or not the order of the lower Court is correct.
- And finally, it provides guidance to the public in respect of similar matters.
Although all of the above may appear somewhat obvious in respect of the rule of law and its proper application, it bears repeating whenever possible.
All too often, particularly in lower courts (and here I include Regional and Magistrate’s Courts, and administrative tribunals and other administrative decision making bodies), the above principles are inadequately applied, if at all.
Written Decisions Can Be Requested
The fact that a dispute or an application, such as the grant or refusal of a liquor license or a rezoning application in a town planning matter, or an objection to an environmental authorisation, does not come before a High Court or the Supreme Court of Appeal, or the Constitutional Court, does not necessarily lessen the importance of the outcome of a decision by an official body before which such matter is heard.
Generally, where decisions are made by official bodies (which are not recognised as courts in the ordinary sense), provision is made in the relevant supporting legislation of such bodies for written decisions to be issued upon request by the interested parties.
It is important that the public is aware of this right and that where decisions are made which are considered inappropriate, the body making such decision may be requested to supply appropriately detailed written reasons.
However, it should be noted that interested parties are frequently limited by a time period during which such request must be made.
In essence, the rule of law requires a high degree of transparency in the decision-making process of all relevant bodies.
It is a constitutional right.