Root X Africa Auctioneers CC v South African Institute of Auctioneers NPC (2025/031150) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1316 (24 December 2025)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPJHC 1316 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Root X Africa Auctioneers CC v South African Institute of Auctioneers NPC (2025/031150) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1316 (24 December 2025) Root X Africa Auctioneers CC v South African Institute of Auctioneers NPC (2025/031150) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1316 (24 December 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_1316.html sino date 24 December 2025 THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO : 2025 -031150 (1)  REPORTABLE: NO (2)  OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES: NO (3)  REVISED 24/12/2025 In the matter between: ROOT -X AFRICA AUCTIONEERS CC APPLICANT and THE SOUTH AFRICAN INSTITUTE OF AUCTIONEERS RESPONDENT (NPC) (Registration number: 1989/005903/08) JUDGMENT BHOOLA AJ, Introduction [1]  The applicant, an auctioneer, seeks the review of the respondent’s refusal to renew its membership with the South African Institute of Auctioneers (NPC) (“SAIA”), for the 2025 cycle. The applicant was a member from 2013 until 2023. The refusal is challenged on the basis it was unlawful, procedurally unfair, irrational, contrary to natural justice, and tainted with bias. [2]  It is common cause that the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (“PAJA”) does not apply, as the respondent is a private body. The applicant is therefore confined to common law grounds of review, requiring fairness, rationality, and adherence to natural justice. [1] [3]  The respondent denies that its decision followed was influenced by disciplinary proceedings. However, the chronology indicates the refusal followed such proceedings, in which the applicant was expelled and blacklisted. That sanction was later overturned on appeal. Despite this, the respondent persisted in excluding the applicant from SAIA membership, citing Continuous Professional Development (CPD) non-compliance and alleging no valid application had been submitted. [4]  The applicant seeks to set aside the refusal under Rule 53, of the Uniform Rules of Court, to compel acceptance of its renewal application lodged on 28 January 2025 and obtain a membership certificate. [5]  On 26 March 2025, an incomplete record was furnished, titled “record of proceedings in confirmation of the decision made to reject the Applicant’s application for membership.” The record lacked the minutes or deliberations of the Committee that took the decision not to renew the membership. [6]  The issues for determination are: 6.1.    Whether the applicant company was entitled to seek renewal of its membership for 2025, or whether it ought to have applied as a new member. 6.2.    Whether the attorney’s letter of 28 January 2025, accompanied by documentation and expressed willingness to comply with requirements, constituted a valid renewal application under SAIA’s Constitution. 6.3.    Whether the respondent’s reliance on CPD non - compliance was consistent with SAIA’s Constitution and CPD policy, and whether such reliance was lawful and rational. 6.5.    With the respondent’s conduct, including the premature referral to the NPA and persistence in exclusion, gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias in breach of the nemo iudex in sua causa principle. 6.6.    Whether there was procedural fairness in the Board of Directors assuming and exercising the decision-making power in respect of renewal, or whether such authority properly vests in the membership Committee. 6.7.    What the appropriate remedy should be, considering the expiry of the 2025 cycle, and whether substitution, declaratory relief, or remittal is justified. Factual Background [7]  The applicant, an auctioneer and member of SAIA, was implicated in disciplinary proceedings following a complaint lodged against a related company. Although the complaint was directed at the related company of which Mr Dirk Pienaar was one of the directors, the respondent also charged the applicant, found both guilty, and referred both to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). This referral was made before the internal disciplinary appeal was heard.  On appeal, the sanction against both entities was set aside in its entirety, as the proceedings had not been conducted in accordance with the respondent’s constitution. [8]  Central to this application is the respondent’s refusal of the 2025 application.  The letter dated 10 February 2025 cited CPD non-compliance. However, in its answering affidavit, the respondent alleged that the applicant had not filed a valid application. [9]  The applicant contends its attorneys’ letter of 28 January 2025, with documentation and willingness to comply, constituted a valid renewal application. [10]  The respondent’s contradictory stance of rejecting the application on CPD grounds yet denying having received any application prompted this review application. This change of position prompted the applicant to challenge the credibility and consistency of the respondent’s reasoning. [11]  The respondent contends that, since the applicant’s membership had expired at the end of 2023, renewal was not possible. The applicant had to apply for membership afresh by 31 December 2024. Legal Framework [12]  At common law, the validity of administrative action is determined not only by the existence of the jurisdictional facts that confer power, but also by the legal framework or constitution under which the decision-maker operates. Procedural safeguards embedded in the constitution and other ancillary policies of bodies must be complied with, to ensure. [2] [13]  The Constitution of SAIA vests membership affairs, including renewal decisions, in the Membership Committee. In order for a member to be considered for initial or renewed membership of SAIA, such member is required to comply with the essential prerequisites, subject to SAIA’s discretion to depart from such prerequisites. [3] To maintain membership, members have to comply with the CPD policy of SAIA. [4] [14]  Very succinctly, according to the respondent’s constitution applications must be submitted to the National Secretary on the prescribed form, accompanied by payment of the prescribed application fee and supporting documents, if applicable. The Membership Committee is vested with the power to accept or reject such applications. [15]  In the event that such application is rejected, details of such rejection shall be furnished to the Board of Directors. If the application is unsuccessful, reasons must be provided to the applicant and the applicant, who has the right to appeal. Such appeal serves before the Board of Directors for a final decision. This provision gives effect to the audi alteram partem principle and the rules of natural justice. [16]  According to the respondent’s CPD policy document, non -compliance is defined as “the failure of an individual to obtain the required points per CPD cycle.”  Each member must maintain their own record of CPD activities and submit it annually at the scheduled time. Failure to do so may result in the suspension or revocation of the member’s professional designation. All SAIA designated members will be required to obtain a minimum of 18 CPD points annually at the required competence level to maintain their designation. Consequences for non- compliance with CPD points may result in suspension under SAIA’s disciplinary procedure. [17] South African courts consistently hold voluntary associations to their constitutions and natural justice. In Turner v Jockey Club of South Africa [5] , the Appellate Division held that fairness and the audi alteram partem - right to be heard apply to private bodies. [18]  The principles of natural justice include both audi alteram partem (the right to be heard) and nemo iudex in sua causa (impartiality). In President of the Republic of South Africa v South African Rugby Football Union [6] , the Constitutional Court confirmed the test for bias is assessed from the perspective of a reasonable, objective observer. [19] In BTR Industries South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Metal and Allied Workers’ Union [7] , the Appellate Division reinforced that decision makers must not be judges in their own cause. [20]  In Theron v Ring van Wellington van die NG Sendingkerk in Suid-Afrika, [8] the court held voluntary associations must act lawfully and fairly, and that courts may intervene where departures from prescribed procedures may invalidate decisions. [21]  In National African Federated Chamber of Commerce and Industry v Mkhize, [9] the Supreme Court of Appeal reaffirmed that the constitution of a voluntary association must be interpreted like any other document, in a sensible and business-like manner. [22]  Procedural fairness requires notice, reasons, and opportunity to appeal. Remedies are guided by Trencon Construction (Pty) Ltd v Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Ltd [10] , which held that substitution is reserved for exceptional circumstances, where the record is complete, defects are fatal, and remittal would serve no purpose and perpetuate unfairness. Submissions [23]  Counsel for the applicant submitted that renewal decisions vest in the Membership Committee, CPD non- compliance is not fatal where a letter of intent is submitted, and the Board’s intervention, coupled with the premature referral to the NPA demonstrated bias. [24]  Counsel for the respondent contended that the applicant had failed to comply with CPD requirements and had not submitted a proper application whether it was for renewal or a fresh application.  It was argued that the Board was entitled to act in the circumstances and that the refusal was justified. Evaluation [25]  With regard to whether the application ought to be a renewal or a new application, the respondent alleged that the applicant’s membership had expired in 2023.  Therefore, the applicant ought to have applied for a new application for membership in 2025. This submission cannot be sustained because the applicant’s disciplinary expulsion was overturned on appeal, thereby restoring its membership status. [26]  Moreover, the Constitution does not provide that failure to renew in one cycle automatically extinguishes membership rights where an appeal has reinstated membership. The sensible interpretation required by National African Federated Chamber of Commerce and Industry v Mkhize [11] is that reinstatement restores continuity. Since continuity is preserved, the applicant was therefore entitled to seek renewal, not new membership. [27]  Considering the validity of the application, the applicant’s attorney’s letter of 28 January 2025, accompanied by documentation and an expressed willingness to comply with requirements, constituted a valid renewal application.  The respondent contended, that this was not a proper application as the applicant had not submitted any prescribed forms but only an attorney’s letter of demand, and therefore no valid application existed. [28]  SAIA’s Constitution provides in order for a member to be considered for initial membership or renewed membership of SAIA, such member is required to comply with the essential prerequisites, subject to SAIA’s discretion to depart from such prerequisites. [12] [29]  From a reading of respondents reply of 10 February 2025, the respondent expressly rejected the application for renewal. The filing sheet of the record submitted by the respondent expressly reads: “Kindly take Notice that the Respondent hereby file the following documents as record of proceedings in confirmation of decision made to reject the applicant’s application for membership. [30]  This contention is internally inconsistent with respondent’s own version. If the respondent did not treat the letter as an application, then there was nothing to reject.  By rejecting on CPD grounds, the respondent implicitly acknowledged that the attorney’s letter constituted an application. Clause 3.2.1 of its constitution provides the respondent with the sole and absolute discretion to depart from the pre-requisites.  Therefore, the manner in which the respondent encapsulated its letter dated 10 February 2025, clearly demonstrates that the respondent considered the demand as an application. [31] The respondent’s contradictory position, denying the existence of an application on the one hand and rejecting it on the other accentuates the irrationality and unfairness of the decision. [32]  Considering the non-compliance with the CPD policy, the respondent relied on CPD non -compliance as a bar to renewal in its letter of 10 February 2025.   Counsel for the respondent submitted that the applicant had failed to meet CPD thresholds and therefore it’s application could not be renewed.  However, the respondent’s own constitution provides that non- compliance is not fatal if a letter of intent is submitted. [33]  Paragraph 15 of the applicant’s letter dated 28 January 2025, expressly states that this is and application for renewal.  Paragraph 16.3 deals with the CPD training for the 2024 year. Instead of inviting compliance for 2025, the respondent rejected the application outright. This was irrational and unlawful, and contrary to the principle enunciated in Theron v Ring van Wellington van die NG Sendingkerk [13] that departures from prescribed procedures invalidate decisions. [34]  Concerning the decision-making authority of the Board versus the Committee, the respondent’s constitution vests renewal decisions in the Membership Committee. The applicant contended that the respondent’s Board assumed the primary decision making role, thereby violating its own Constitution and undermining the principle of fairness. The respondent contended that the Board was entitled to act in the circumstances.  The Board’s intervention usurped and assumed the Membership Committee’s role, which was irregular and unlawful, contrary to its own constitution and that of Theron v Ring van Wellington van die NG Sendingkerk, [14] National African Federated Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Others v Mkhize and Others , [15] which provides that constitutions of voluntary associations must be interpreted sensibly and applied faithfully. [35]  On the issue of bias and hostility, the respondent denied it was biased, contending that its actions were justified. However, the disciplinary history reinforces the inference of bias. Referral to the NPA before the appeal, coupled with persistence in exclusion, supports a reasonable apprehension of bias. Applying President of the Republic of South Africa v South African Rugby Football Union [16] and BTR Industries South Africa (Pty) Ltd) v MAWU [17] the nemo iudex principle was breached, as the Board acted as Judge in its own case. [36]  Considering procedural fairness and the right to appeal, the applicant contended that it was entitled, both under the SAIA’s constitution and as a matter of fairness, to be furnished with reasons and afforded an internal appeal to the board. [37]  The respondent contended that its refusal was procedurally sound and that the applicant had no right of appeal. [38]  The applicant was denied the minutes and deliberations of the record, notice, and an internal appeal as the Board assumed the decision making role and communicated the refusal without inviting the applicant to make representations. The respondent’s shifting grounds of CPD non - compliance versus no application, deprived the applicant of a fair opportunity to respond. The refusal to renew, without affording the applicant a hearing or appeal, amounted to a denial of natural justice. This contravenes Turner v Jockey Club of South Africa. [18] V oluntary associations must adhere to the principles of fairness and natural justice. [39]  Considering the remedy, although substitution is exceptional, fairness requires that the 2025 renewal be deemed valid for the record. Future cycles must be considered afresh by the Membership Committee in accordance with the respondent’s Constitution and renewal guides, without any interference by the Board. [40]  The respondent’s conduct warrants a costs order. The applicant was treated unfairly, compelled to litigate his rights, and succeeded in establishing that the refusal was unlawful, procedurally unfair, irrational, and trained by bias. [41]  The Court observes, in obiter , that voluntary associations must adhere strictly to their constitutions and the principles of fairness. Any future departure from these requirements will invite judicial intervention, for autonomy cannot be exercised at the expense of legality and members’ rights. Conclusion [42]  The Court has carefully examined the evidence and submissions, concluding that the respondent's refusal to renew the applicant company's membership was unlawful and procedurally unfair. The decision was marred by irrationality and bias, warranting judicial intervention to uphold the principles of fairness and legality. Accordingly, the Court sets aside the impugned decision and affirms the applicant's entitlement to membership renewal for the 2025 cycle. [43]  Although the applicant did not expressly seek an order directing that future renewal membership cycles be considered afresh by the Membership Committee; this relief flows directly from the case made out in the papers. The pleadings squarely raised the irregular assumption of power by the Board, and the Court is empowered to grant consequential relief that is just and equitable. In review proceedings, the Court is not confined to the precise wording of the Notice of Motion but may craft remedies necessary to give effect to its findings and to prevent recurrence of illegality. The order is therefore properly within the Court’s remedial discretion. [19] Order [44] In the result, the following order is made: 43.1.   The decision of the respondent, rejecting the applicant’s application for renewal of the applicant membership with the respondent for the year 2025, as communicated to the applicant on 10 February 2025, is reviewed and set aside. 43.2.   It is declared that the applicant was entitled to seek renewal of its membership for the 2025 cycle, and that the refusal was unlawful, procedurally unfair, irrational, and tainted by bias. 43.3.   The applicant’s renewal of membership for the 2025 cycle is deemed valid and effective for the record. 43.4.   Future renewal membership cycles shall be considered afresh by the Membership Committee, in accordance with the Constitution and renewal guidelines, and without interference from the Board of Directors. 43.5.   The respondent is directed to pay the costs of this application. Considering the complexity of the matter, cost is awarded on scale “C”. CB. BHOOLA Acting Judge of the High Court Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg Delivered:     This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected on 24 December 2025 and is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties/their legal representatives by e mail and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on CaseLines.  The date for hand-down is deemed to be 24 December   2025. APPEARANCES Date of hearing: 18 November 2025 Date of judgment: 24 December 2025 For the applicant: Adv. Daniel Prinsloo (Tel: 012 942 2114/083 381 0006, email danielprinsloo@icloud.com) Instructed by: Jacobs Roos Fouche Inc. Attorneys (Tel: 012 111 1804, email: pieter@rflaw.co.za .) For the defendant: Advocate Mias Mostert (Tel: 011 535 1800/082 499 7048, email: miasmostert@law.co.za ) Instructed by: Van Deventer Dlamini Inc. Attorneys (Tel: 017 2000 0730, email:  wessel@vddinc.co.za) [1] Turner v Jockey Club of South Africa 1974 (3) SA 633 (A) [2] President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v South African Rugby Football Union and Others (CCT16/98) [1999] ZACC 11 2000 (1) SA 1 (CC) (President of the Republic of South Africa v South African  Rugby Football) [3] Clauses 3.2.1 to 3.2.10 [4] Clause 3.2.10 [5] 1974 (3) SA 633 (A) [6] (CCT16/98) [1999] ZACC 11; 2000 (1) SA 1 (CC) [7] (151/89) [1992] ZASCA 85 ; 1992 (3) SA 673 (AD) [8] [1975] ZASCA 3/ 1976 (2) SA 1 (A) [9] [2014] ZASCA 177 [10] (CCT198/14) [2015] ZACC 22, 2015 (5) SA 245 (CC) [11] [2014] ZASCA 177 [12] Clauses 3.2.1 to 3.2.10 [13] [1975] ZASCA 3/ 1976 (2) SA 1 (A) [14] [1975] ZASCA 3/ 1976 (2) SA 1 (A) [15] (805/13) [2014] ZASCA 177 ; [2015] 1 All SA 393 (SCA) [16] [1999] ZACC 9 ; 1999 (4) SA 147(3) SA 633 (A) [17] (151/89) [1992] ZASCA 85, 1992 (3) SA 673 (A) [18] 1974(3) SA 633 [19] Fose v Minister of Safety and Security [1997] ZACC 6 ; 1997 (3) SA 786 (CC); Trencon Construction (Pty) Ltd v IDC 2015 (5)  SA 245 (CC)) sino noindex make_database footer start