Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors and Others v East Rand Member District of Chartered Accountants and Others

The Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors (IRBA), a statutory body established under the Auditing Profession Act 26 of 2005, prescribed various fees payable by registered auditors and tax practitioners for the 2020 and 2021 financial years. These included percentage-based assurance fees for Category C (low-risk) assurance work, tax practitioner fees, administration fees, above-inflation increases to annual renewal fees, and the withdrawal of a 50% fee concession previously granted to auditors over the age of 65. The fee prescriptions were published in Government Gazettes in 2019 and 2020. The East Rand Member District of Chartered Accountants, representing affected auditors, brought review applications under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA), alternatively under the principle of legality, challenging the Board’s authority to impose these fees and alleging procedural unfairness, irrationality, and ultra vires conduct. The High Court largely upheld the challenges and set aside the impugned decisions. IRBA appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal succeeded in part. The SCA set aside portions of the High Court’s order and remitted the IRBA’s decisions on Category C assurance fees, tax practitioner fees, certain administration fees, and the withdrawal of the senior auditor fee concession to the IRBA for reconsideration by 31 March 2025 after affording procedurally fair administrative action. The IRBA was directed to repay or credit overcharged Category C assurance fees for the 2020 and 2021 financial years. The remainder of the appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

This judgment clarifies the administrative-law nature of fee-setting powers exercised by professional regulatory bodies in South Africa and affirms that such decisions are subject to PAJA review. It underscores the importance of procedural fairness when regulatory bodies prescribe fees or withdraw benefits, and confirms that administrative decisions requiring gazetting only become reviewable once they have direct external legal effect. The case provides authoritative guidance on the limits of statutory fee-setting powers and the timing of PAJA reviews.