Foodcorp (Pty) Ltd v Deputy Director General, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism: Branch Marine and Coastal Management and Others

The case concerned the allocation of commercial pelagic fishing rights (pilchard and anchovy) for the 2002–2005 fishing seasons under the Marine Living Resources Act 18 of 1998. The Minister (or his delegate) determined the total allowable catch (TAC) and allocated quotas using a new Operational Management Plan (OMP-02), which replaced separate pilchard and anchovy quotas with a single combined quota allocated through a mathematical formula. Foodcorp, a company with significant canning capacity, experienced a drastic reduction in its quota, while two companies without canning facilities received massive and disproportionate increases. These results were produced by the mechanical application of the formula, without any further consideration or adjustment by the decision-maker. Foodcorp challenged the allocations on review under PAJA, alleging that the formula produced irrational and unreasonable outcomes and that the decision-makers fettered their discretion.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The SCA set aside the decision of the court a quo and reviewed and set aside the allocation of pelagic fishing quotas for the 2005 season. The matter was remitted to the respondents for a fresh determination of the distribution of the pelagic TAC for the 2005 season. The respondents were ordered to pay costs, including the costs of two counsel.

The case is significant for South African administrative law as it clarifies the limits of judicial deference in policy-laden and technical administrative decisions. It confirms that even complex, expert-driven allocation systems must meet the constitutional and PAJA standard of reasonableness. The judgment reinforces the principle that decision-makers may not fetter their discretion by rigidly applying formulas and must consider whether outcomes are rational and justifiable.