Cape Town - A poultry company’s appeal against a letter by the Minister of Agriculture giving the Food Safety Agency the mandate to conduct inspections and discretion to determine fees, has been dismissed by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries at the time, had issued a letter by which the “Agency for Food Safety” was designated as an assignee in terms of the Agricultural Product Standards Act (the Act). But poultry company, Top Lay Egg Co-Op Ltd, approached the high court for a declarator and review order.
According to the judgment, the purpose of the act is to ensure that products sold to the public are in accordance with the prescribed class or grade, comply with the prescribed standards, and are packed, marked and labelled accordingly, do not contain prescribed prohibited substances or contain a prescribed substance.
“These requirements are for the benefit of both consumers and the producers or stakeholders involved.
“To give effect to this legitimate purpose, section 2 of the act empowers the minister to designate an official in the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (the Department) as an executive officer and designate a person, undertaking, body, institution association or board as an assignee.”
In their first ground of appeal, the Top Lay Egg Co-op contended that the identity of the designated assignee letter caused confusion. The minister’s letter of designation refers to “Agency for Food Safety”, which the appellants contend, was a non-existent person or entity.
On inquiry, so the appellants contend, they could not find an entity registered.
The judgment explained that the minister issued a public invitation for submission of bids regarding the appointment of assignees in respect of agricultural products.
Eleven bids from prospective assignees were received – Food Safety Agency (Pty) Ltd, a third respondent in the matter, was one of the prospective assignees, where it mentioned that it is a registered company trading as Agency for Food Safety.
The poultry company also in their litigation contended that “the determination of fees by the assignee was reviewable in terms of PAJA on the grounds that they were, allegedly, arbitrary; capricious or irrational”.
However, it turned out that the minister in fact referred to “Food Security Agency (Pty) Ltd” by using its trade name in the letter.
This had been clarified by correspondence exchanged between the parties well before the institution of proceeding in the high court.
SCA Judge Selewe Mothle said: “The exercise of the powers to determine fees is an administrative decision and consequently it must comply with the provisions of (section) 4 of PAJA.”
It is not disputed that the assignee respondents went through a consultative process to determine fees, which the appellants did not attend, though other role players (did).
“The consultative process enabled the assignee, who bears the ultimate power to decide, to determine a fee based on a budget, the expected service and costs considerations.
“Therefore, the allegation that the determination of the fee was arbitrary, capricious and irrational cannot be sustained and was correctly rejected by the high court and the full court. This ground of appeal is also unmeritorious and stands to be rejected,” said Judge Mothle before dismissing the appeal with costs.
Cape Times