PFE International Inc (BVI) and Others v Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Limited

The applicants, companies and directors within the PFE group, were involved in pending High Court litigation arising from an alleged breach of fiduciary duties relating to share acquisitions. After pleadings closed in related trial proceedings instituted by SAFYR, the applicants sought access to certain records held by the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC), a public body, claiming the information was necessary to respond to requests for further particulars and to prepare for trial. Instead of using procedural mechanisms under the Uniform Rules of Court, they requested access under the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 (PAIA). The IDC refused, arguing that PAIA was excluded by section 7(1) because access should be sought via a subpoena duces tecum under Rule 38. The High Court upheld the PAIA request, but the Supreme Court of Appeal reversed that decision, holding PAIA inapplicable. The applicants sought leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed. The order of the Supreme Court of Appeal, dismissing the PAIA application with costs, was upheld.

This case clarifies the relationship between PAIA and court procedural rules, confirming that PAIA does not apply to information sought for purposes of pending litigation where access is regulated by court rules. It reinforces the principle of constitutional subsidiarity and affirms that litigants must use procedural mechanisms under the Uniform Rules rather than PAIA once proceedings have commenced.