South Africa: Refusing Information In Terms Of The Promotion Of Access To Information Act No. 2 Of 2000: Earthlife Africa (Cape Town Branch) v Eskom Holdings Limited (unreported WLD Case No. 04/27514)

Last Updated: 22 February 2006
Article by Neil Kirby

Originally published in Litigation Werks: Volume 16 / February 2006

The Promotion of Access to Information Act No. 2 of 2000 ("the Information Act") has already received much attention from our courts. In a recent unreported judgment in the Witwatersrand Local Division, further principles concerning the manner in which information may be requested and refused were elucidated by the court.

The matter concerned a request by Earthlife Africa ("Earth Life") to Eskom Holdings Limited ("Eskom") for information relating to certain emission records of Vaalputs, Pelindaba and Koeberg waste sites from 1983 to 2003 including sampling results of water, air, vegetation, animals (sea and land), other data concerning emissions and certain of Eskom board minutes from 1998 to 2003. Consequently, Eskom granted access to the emission reports of the Koeberg power station but stated that it was not in possession of similar information in respect of Vaalputs and Pelindaba sites. Eskom refused requests concerning its board minutes stating that the minutes were protected in terms of the Information Act by virtue of the exclusions concerning -

  • the economic interests and financial welfare of public bodies;
  • the protection of the trade secrets of public bodies;
  • the protection of certain financial, commercial, scientific or technical information, other than trade secrets;
  • the potential for the information, if disclosed, to place Eskom at a disadvantage in contractual or other negotiations or to prejudice Eskom in commercial competition;
  • the fact that the documents were generated in the context of the formulation of a policy or the taking of a decision in the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty conferred or imposed upon Eskom by law.

Undeterred, Earth Life lodged a second request for information with Eskom in or about January 2004. The second request was more pointed in so far as it requested information and documents concerning the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor, which the court referred to as the PBMR. The information requested concerned, more particularly, business plans relating to the PBMR, technical reports and any financial reports concerning support for any alternative energy source. Eskom again refused the minutes of the board meetings and business plans concerning the PBMR and the financial implications and technical reports of the PBMR. Eskom, once again, relied on the exclusions contained in the Information Act aforementioned.

The court accepted that the applicant had overcome the hurdle, in the Information Act, basing its request on the enforcement of a right contained in section 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 which provides everyone with the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or wellbeing and to have the environment protected. To this end, the court stated that "[t]his application clearly addresses such matters so that the crucial issue is whether the applicant is or not entitled to access the remainder of the records."

Due to the nature of the grounds upon which Eskom relied in order to refuse access to the information, the court was required to assess whether or not the information, so requested, related to trade secrets and potentially sensitive information the disclosure of which would place Eskom at a commercial disadvantage. The court stated that the matter "clearly, involves a considerable body of technical information and material in respect of which the court must, of necessity, seek the guidance of a suitably qualified expert. For example, the question as to whether certain information or a particular document is to be classified under one of the statutory exemptions, whether it is a trade secret or on any other basis, might well involve experts in specialised knowledge which the court does not possess. Thus, the question whether certain information or documentation does or does not qualify for exemption from disclosure may well involve a consideration of expert opinion."

The court then examined carefully the nature of the evidence attached to Eskom’s answering affidavit as well as the nature of the expert evidence that was attached to and contained in Earth Life’s founding and replying affidavits. The court dismissed the evidence of a number of the experts on the basis that affidavits, supporting the views that were contained in technical articles, were not provided. The court examined the nature of the expert evidence and, in certain instances, dismissed the expert evidence adduced by both parties. However, the conclusion reached by the court was that, based on the expert evidence produced by Eskom, the documents and information requested by Earthlife Africa constitute "confidential information and trade secrets which are protected from disclosure."

The court indicated that the basis for adjudicating whether or not information requested constitutes confidential information is a question of fact. In this regard, the classification of information as confidential information is only competent, for the purposes of the Information Act, when it is supported by expert evidence concerning both the nature of the information requested and the context in which the requested information is used by the entity. These issues render the requested information confidential or sensitive and thus protected by the Information Act:

"[Earth Life] has provided no evidence which contradicts that of Dr Lennon. Insofar as it may be suggested that there exists a dispute of fact as to the classification of the information sought by [Earth Life], the relief sought may be granted only if justified by the admitted averments in [Earth Life]’s founding affidavit together with the facts alleged by [Eskom]."

Earth Life also did not place into question the commercial, financial and technical nature of the information it requested. Earth Life was therefore at a distinct disadvantage in so far as it attempted to argue that the information, notwithstanding the classification of it by Eskom when dealing with the Earth Life’s request, was incorrect and that the information should be classified in an alternative manner so as to provide Earth Life with access to the records it had requested. Fundamentally, the court summarised the issue as "whether, on the factual information available to the court, the respondent is entitled to refuse access by virtue of the statutory provisions contained in the Information Act. This is essentially a question of fact and I reiterate that there appears to be little or no dispute as to questions of law." Based on the expert evidence assessed by the court, Earth Life’s application was dismissed.

Whilst the short title of the Information Act indicates that it is a statute that is to be used in order to obtain access to information, large portions of the Information Act are dedicated to the protection of information. There is no reason why records should be made available to a requester who requests access to those records in terms of the Information Act. A person receiving a request is entitled to refuse access to records provided that -

  • the refusal is based upon one or more of the recognised exclusions contained in the Information Act; and
  • the refusal is capable of justification, based on the exclusionary ground/s selected, with reference to facts or expert evidence or both.

The court adopted a conservative and cautious approach to the interpretation of the Information Act. Whilst it was certainly argued by Earth Life that "the withholding of information is only permitted on the grounds explicitly set out in the [Information] Act [and that] [a]ccess should only be denied where it is clearly justified", the court held that Eskom had succeeded in demonstrating that the information should be protected on the grounds set out in the judgment:

"In applying such a principle, the court cannot read more or less into the limitations which have been expressly defined in the Information Act. Although the applicant has contended that the statutory limitations should be narrowly construed, they are, in my view, perfectly clear and cannot be expanded or constricted at the whim of either of the parties."

The approach by the court, in relation to the cause of action of Earth Life being the potentially adverse effect which Eskom’s activities at Pelindaba, Koeberg and Vaalputs would have on the environment, constitutes a departure point that may have been more useful for Earth Life to use in order to argue for the mandatory disclosure of the information requested.

The court recognised the objects of the Earth Life, being "to highlight environmental injustice and to promote ecologically sound alternatives such as renewable energy. Its activities are mainly campaign related and include lobbying and advocacy with a range of stakeholders, including government, building campaigns at community level through sharing information and skills, engaging with environmental impact assessments, engaging the media and researching and producing information materials." The court also recognised the environmental basis upon which Earth Life made its request for information in so far as it has lobbied against the establishment of nuclear energy facilities in South Africa. The approach therefore by Earth Life was one based primarily on environmental concerns and considerations. This issue does not, however, appear to have been granted much attention by the court in assessing whether or not there existed grounds upon which to require the disclosure of the information concerned, notwithstanding the grounds advanced by Eskom upon which to refuse the information. Section 46 of the Information Act may be applied in circumstances to require mandatory disclosure of information where there is an

imminent and serious public safety or environmental risk that would be revealed if the record requested was disclosed in the public interest and the disclosure would outweigh the harm contemplated in the provision in question.

The emphasis in the judgment is placed clearly on whether or not the information requested was suitably classified by Eskom for the purposes of refusing disclosure of the records and not on whether or not section 46 was applicable to the records ie, whether or not the nature of the records, if disclosed, would reveal an imminent and serious public safety or environmental risk. It may be these differences of emphasis that caused the court to find that the applicant had not adequately addressed the expert information produced by Eskom. This appears to be clear from the emphasis placed by the court on the expert evidence produced by both parties in the light of the sections of the Information Act, referred to above, excluding section 46.

If one considers this case to be one more concerned with an environmental issue rather than one based exclusively on an explanation of the provisions of the Information Act, then it is arguably at odds with -

  • the approach taken by South African courts to environmental issues of late, in a trend of environmental enlightenment that has placed the emphasis rather on protecting the environment and punishing polluters;
  • the approach taken by the court in the decision of David v Clutchco (Proprietary) Limited 2004 (1) SA 75 (C) in which it was held that:

"[i]f the Companies Act does not provide an equivalent process to safeguard his proprietary interests in the company, then it cannot be contended that the [Information] Act should be superseded by the Companies Act. In the as yet unreported Constitutional Court decision of Ingledew v Financial Services Board & Others [2003 (4) SA 584 (CC)] it was acknowledged that the [Information] Act is applicable in instances of concurrent rights to information; all the more so in the instant case given the absence of a right to the information sought under the Companies Act and consequently the absence of concurrent rights." (at 86D-E)

However, in so far as one considers this judgment in the context exclusively of the Information Act, then further guidance is provided on the application of the exemptions provided for in the Information Act and the manner in which persons, receiving requests for information, may deal with those requests and successfully avoid providing the information requested.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions