The Helen Suzman Foundation argued that the Minister's decision was reviewable under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 and the inherent principle of legality enshrined in the Constitution.
In the circumstances, the Foundation reviewed the Minister's decision on, among others, the grounds set out below. Having found that the Minister's decision amounts to administrative action, the court considered the application of PAJA.
The court considered that no admissible evidence was placed before it by the Minister in relation to whether he took any such considerations into account, and if so, how these considerations were taken into account. Having regard to this, the only conclusion that the court could reach was that the Minister failed to consider the inevitable impact of his decision on the lives and livelihoods of ZEP holders and their children.