Security Industry Alliance v Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority and Others

The Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSIRA), established under the Private Security Industry Regulation Act 56 of 2001, recommended amendments to regulations governing annual fees payable by security businesses and security officers. Acting with the concurrence of the Minister of Police, PSIRA promulgated amendments in November 2011 that substantially increased levies payable by security businesses, including a flat annual fee of R4 250 and monthly payments per security officer employed. The Security Industry Alliance, representing stakeholders in the private security industry, challenged the validity of the amendments under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA), contending that the consultation process was procedurally unfair, the increases were unreasonable and irrational, and that PSIRA acted under an error of law by believing it lacked power to differentiate between small and large security businesses when setting fees. The North Gauteng High Court dismissed the review application, and the Alliance appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld. The order of the High Court was set aside. The amendment to the regulations promulgated in Government Gazette No 34775 of 25 November 2011 was reviewed and set aside. The first and second respondents were ordered to pay the appellant’s costs, including the costs of two counsel.

This case affirms that the implementation of policy decisions through regulations constitutes administrative action subject to judicial review under PAJA. It underscores that a material error of law by an administrator, particularly regarding the scope of its statutory powers, renders administrative action reviewable. The judgment also clarifies that points of law may be raised on appeal if they arise from the record and do not cause procedural unfairness.