Bertie Van Zyl (Pty) Ltd t/a ZZ2 and Others v Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and Others

The appellants, comprising commercial growers’ organisations and an importers’ association, challenged provisions of the Agricultural Product Standards Act 119 of 1990 that allow an assignee designated by the Minister to determine inspection fees payable by product owners. They sought (a) a declaration that s 3(1A)(b)(ii) read with s 3A(4) of the Act is unconstitutional, and (b) a review and setting aside of inspection fees determined by the second respondent, Product Control for Agriculture (Procon). The High Court dismissed both the constitutional challenge and the review, holding that the appellants had failed to exhaust an internal appeal remedy. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld in part. The constitutional challenge to s 3(1A)(b)(ii) read with s 3A(4) of the Act was dismissed. Procon’s determination of inspection fees published as Notice 1 of 2017 in Government Gazette 40537 was reviewed and set aside. Costs of the review were awarded against the first, second, and eighth respondents.

The case clarifies that regulatory fees charged for services rendered do not, without more, amount to a deprivation of property under s 25 of the Constitution. It also affirms that s 195(1) of the Constitution embodies values rather than enforceable rights. Importantly, the judgment reinforces procedural fairness requirements under PAJA for fee-setting by private assignees exercising public power, emphasising the need for transparency and meaningful public participation.