Fana hlongwane biography of nancy

Section 78(2)(d)(i) reads as follows: "A requester-(d)aggrieved by a decision of the head of a private body- (i) to refuse a request for access; may, by way of application , within 30 days apply to court for appropriate relief in terms of section 82.

Section 82 provides that: "The court hearing an application may grant any order that is just and equitable, including orders- (a) confirming , amending or setting aside the decision which is the subject of the application concerned; (b) requiring from the information officer or ... the head of a private body to take such action or to refrain from taking such action as the court considers necessary within a period mentioned in the order; (c) granting an interdict, interim or specific relief, a declaratory order or compensation ; or (d) as to costs".

Section 50 (1) (a) of the Act provides that: "A requester must be given access to any record of a private body if-that record is required for the exercise or protection of any rights.

2005 (3) SA 486 (SCA).

[2006] ZASCA 34; 2006 (4) SA 436 (SCA). In dealing with the meaning of 'required' in section 50 (1) (a) of the Act, the court held that: "[6] .... Generally speaking the question whether a particular record is 'required' in the context of s50 (1) (a) for the exercise of protection of a particular right is inextricably bound up with the facts of that matter."

In NDPP v Zuma 2009 (2) SA 207 at [47] the court stated that: "...It is not proper for a court in motion proceedings to base its judgment on passages in documents which have been annexed to the papers when the conclusions sought to be drawn from such passages have not been canvassed in the affidavits. The reason is manifest - the other party may well be prejudiced because evidence may have been available to it to refute the new case on the facts. A party cannot be expected to trawl through annexures to the opponent's affidavit and to speculate on the possible relevance of facts therein contained. The position is no different from the case where a witness in a trail is not called upon to deal with a fact and the court then draws an adverse conclusion against that witness".

2010 (4) SA 468 (SCA).