logo
Trustworthy: do trustees need to comply with the Promotion of Access to Information Act?

Trustworthy: do trustees need to comply with the Promotion of Access to Information Act?

IOL News05-07-2025
This article explores whether trusts are required to comply with the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) in South Africa, examining legal definitions and recent court rulings.
Image: File photo.
A recent deadline for relevant entities to submit their PAIA Annual Returns by 30 June 2025 has raised the question of whether trusts are included among the entities covered by the PAIA. The PAIA's primary aim is to grant individuals the right to access information held by both public and private bodies, thereby fostering a more transparent and accountable society. Section 32 of our Constitution states that 'Everyone has a right of access to any information held by the state and any information held by another person that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights.'
The PAIA, Regulations, 'Professor Google' and guidance by the Court cause more confusion than providing clarity, as it is blatantly clear that trusts, which are considered unique entities by our courts, were never specifically catered for in the legislation.
In South Africa, both public and private bodies must comply with the PAIA. This means that nearly all entities, from government departments to private companies, are required to follow PAIA regulations and keep a PAIA manual. Public bodies are defined in the PAIA as any government body, institution, or organ performing a public function. This includes national and provincial departments, municipalities, and state-owned enterprises.
Clearly, trusts do not fall under this definition. The only remaining category in which a trust might be classified is 'private bodies'. 'Private bodies' are defined as 'a) a natural person who carries or has carried on any trade, business or profession, but only in such capacity; (b) a partnership which carries or has carried on any trade, business or profession; (c) any former or existing juristic person'. Trusts cannot be seen as 'partnerships', so the only remaining options are (a) and (c).
Is a trust a 'juristic person'?
'Professor Google' suggests that for the PAIA, a trust is considered a 'juristic person', similar to a company or close corporation, and is therefore subject to the PAIA because it is regarded as a 'private body'. According to this definition, all 'juristic persons' are deemed private bodies and must comply with the Act, regardless of whether they conduct a business, trade, or profession, since no additional qualifying criteria are specified.
Prior to January 1, 2022, certain small private bodies were exempt from the requirement to have a PAIA manual based on sector, number of employees, and annual turnover. However, this exemption has been removed, and now all private bodies, regardless of size, must comply with the PAIA. A private body now includes all juristic persons, regardless of whether they conduct trade, business, or a profession. This means that any trust, including family, testamentary, special, and business trusts, must comply with PAIA.
The Trust Property Control Act, however, defines a trust as 'an arrangement' rather than a 'person'. Consequently, a trust is not regarded as an independent entity or juristic person that can be owned, sold, or transferred, as is the case with a company or a close corporation. Instead, a trust is considered a legal institution of its own kind or class (sui generis) in South Africa (Braun v Blann & Botha case of 1984 and Rosner v Lydia Swanepoel Trust case of 1998). This was confirmed in the Tusk Construction Support Services (Pty) Ltd v Independent Development Trust case of 2020, where it was held that even though a trust does not have a legal personality, it 'remains 'a legal institution sui generis''.
Therefore, a trust does not possess legal personality (unless a statute defines it as such) because it is simply an accumulation of assets and liabilities administered and owned by the trustees (case of Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa v Parker in 2005). As the PAIA does not specifically include a trust in the definition of a 'juristic person', such as the Companies Act and the Income Tax Act, it cannot be inferred that a trust is considered a 'juristic person' within the meaning of a private body in PAIA. This definition, therefore, will not bring a trust within the PAIA net.
Are trustees carrying on, or have they carried on, any trade, business, or profession?
The only remaining possibility for including trusts as 'private bodies' that must adhere to the requirements of the PAIA is if the trustees can be seen as natural persons who engage in or have engaged in any trade, business, or profession. In this instance, a 'private body' actually refers to individuals running businesses in their personal capacities (sole proprietors) and not through entities, including trusts. Again, trusts are not explicitly mentioned or included. However, in the case of Kilbourn v Zwemstra and others in 2023, the judge held that 'the trustees are natural persons who carry on the business of the trust, albeit in a representative capacity. In my view, therefore, a trust falls squarely within the definition of a private body.
The aforesaid interpretation is consonant with the Constitutional imperative that information should be accessible to persons seeking to exercise or protect a right. Whilst under the pre-democracy regime, secrecy often led to abuses and violations of human rights, under our democratic dispensation, it is important to promote transparency.
I can see no reason why a trust should be treated any differently from any other juristic or natural person that carries on a business or trade.' If this interpretation is accepted, the application will be far narrower to the various types of trusts. Unlike the above interpretation, only trusts that carry on trades or businesses will be included, and family, testamentary, and special trusts will be excluded.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Major court battle looming over City of Cape Town rates
Major court battle looming over City of Cape Town rates

The South African

time17 hours ago

  • The South African

Major court battle looming over City of Cape Town rates

The City of Cape Town is heading into a potential legal battle over its recently implemented 'city cleaning levy,' with civil rights organisation AfriForum preparing to challenge the charge in court. This legal challenge follows the North Gauteng High Court's recent decision to overturn a similar levy imposed by the City of Tshwane, declaring it 'invalid and unlawful.' AfriForum successfully argued that Tshwane's R194-per-month fee amounted to illegal double taxation, violating both constitutional and municipal regulations. Now, AfriForum is setting its sights on Cape Town's version of the charge, which came into effect on 1 July. The group has instructed its legal team to initiate proceedings, calling the levy a 'fundraising ploy' that mirrors Tshwane's flawed approach. Unlike Tshwane's flat-rate levy, Cape Town's cleaning fee is calculated progressively based on property values and applies to all property owners. The City insists the charge forms part of its 'pro-poor budget,' which includes R40 billion in infrastructure investment over the next three years. Officials maintain the levy is a necessary tool to fund core services and improve urban cleanliness. However, critics argue the fee lacks a proper legislative basis and serves more as a revenue-generation mechanism than a targeted service fee. The South African Property Owners Association (SAPOA) and the Cape Town Collective Ratepayers' Association (CTCRA) have both expressed strong opposition. 'This is not just about Cape Town,' said a CTCRA spokesperson. 'If this levy is allowed to stand, it sets a dangerous precedent for municipalities across the country to impose similar charges without transparent legal justification.' In Tshwane's case, the court found the city had violated Section 229(1) of the Constitution and Section 74(1) of the Municipal Systems Act, which limit how municipalities can raise revenue. AfriForum CEO Kallie Kriel argues that Cape Town's cleaning levy falls into the same constitutional trap. 'The City is using the levy as a disguised tax to plug budget gaps caused by mismanagement,' Kriel said. 'We believe the courts will agree.' SAPOA has already filed for a judicial review of the levy, while the CTCRA is applying to join the proceedings as amicus curiae (friend of the court). If the court rules in their favour, the City could be ordered to refund residents – mirroring Tshwane's outcome. While Cape Town argues the fee is vital for maintaining essential services, opponents view it as a test case for municipal accountability and financial transparency. The outcome could reshape how South African cities structure service charges and tax residents. As legal filings proceed, Cape Town residents and property owners remain in limbo, uncertain whether the cleaning levy will be upheld – or scrapped, with refunds to follow. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.

Legal showdown: Cape Town ratepayers back SAPOA in fight against unlawful municipal charges
Legal showdown: Cape Town ratepayers back SAPOA in fight against unlawful municipal charges

IOL News

timea day ago

  • IOL News

Legal showdown: Cape Town ratepayers back SAPOA in fight against unlawful municipal charges

The City of Cape Town is being challenged in court for how it calculates fixed municipal charges. Image: File Picture The Cape Town Collective Ratepayers' Association (CTCRA) has welcomed a court case brought by the South African Property Owners Association (SAPOA) against the City of Cape Town over how it calculates certain charges on municipal bills. SAPOA has taken the City to the Western Cape High Court, arguing that linking fixed water and sewage charges to property value is unlawful - a view shared by the CTCRA, a newly forming body made up of 57 civic and ratepayer associations across Cape Town. Its interim chair is Noordhoek Ratepayers' Association chairperson Bas Zuidberg. In response to SAPOA's legal challenge, Cape Town Mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis said in a statement that the association was acting to protect the profits of the country's wealthiest property owners at the expense of ordinary Capetonians. 'SAPOA represents the largest and wealthiest commercial property owners – primarily shopping mall owners – who have long benefited from the success of Cape Town,' said Hill-Lewis. 'Yet now they argue that they should contribute the same to infrastructure costs as low-income households, which would be patently unfair.' He said SAPOA's attempt to halt the City's 2025/26 budget amounted to a defence of regressive taxation. 'The effect would be for ordinary families to effectively subsidise the richest property owners.' The City replaced the former "pipe levy", which had charged households equally based on pipe size, with a more equitable system linking fixed charges to property value. 'It's simply unsustainable for a R50 million home and a R500 000 home to make the same fixed contribution,' Hill-Lewis said. In a statement, the CTCRA said the City's approach to charging residents contravenes national legislation governing municipal revenue and services. The cleaning charge, for instance, was cited as an example of a general cost, comparable to road repairs or emergency services, that should be covered by property rates and not billed as a separate fee tied to property value. The CTCRA warned that if the issue is left unchallenged, other municipalities may adopt similar practices. 'This isn't just about Cape Town. It's about fairness and following the Constitution,' the association said. The group confirmed that the billing issue affects both business and residential property owners. It is considering applying to the court as a friend of the court (amicus curiae) to support SAPOA's legal arguments. The association also criticised Hill-Lewis for what it described as a deflection from the legal substance of the case. The mayor hasn't addressed the actual legal points raised. Instead, he's tried to frame the issue as one group of residents versus another,' said Zuidberg. They noted that many of those who objected to the City's latest budget were ordinary middle-class residents, not wealthy property owners. 'We're talking about retired people, single parents and families living month-to-month. Just because they own homes doesn't mean they can afford hundreds of rands more each month." The CTCRA argued that equating property value with affordability is misleading and that the City should not assume the right to determine who can or can't afford to pay more. In response to the City's claim that its budget includes mitigation measures to protect vulnerable households, the association said this was irrelevant if the charges themselves are unlawful. It also rejected the City's defence of its policies as a matter of tax fairness. 'Service charges aren't taxes. They're fees for services delivered. They're not meant to be progressive or regressive,' said Zuidberg. CTCRA said it and other civic groups had suggested alternatives, such as boosting municipal efficiency or introducing a tourist overnight tax, but these proposals were ignored. 'This court case is about the law - and the City must follow it,' the association said. Get your news on the go, click here to join the Cape Argus News WhatsApp channel. Cape Argus

NCOP approves Appropriation Bill, marking a pivotal moment in the 2025/26 Budget process
NCOP approves Appropriation Bill, marking a pivotal moment in the 2025/26 Budget process

IOL News

time3 days ago

  • IOL News

NCOP approves Appropriation Bill, marking a pivotal moment in the 2025/26 Budget process

The Appropriation Bill was passed by the National Council of Provinces, with 51 votes in favour and nine against. Image: Armand Hough / Independent Newspapers The National Council of Provinces (NCOP) on Wednesday passed the Appropriation Bill, concluding the legislative journey of the 2025/26 budgetary process within Parliament. The Bill, the first introduced by the Government of National Unity (GNU), received a generally smooth passage during its consideration earlier in the day. The MK Party and EFF objected to each department budget, while the Freedom Front Plus abstained on the vote of the Department of Employment and Labour. A total of 51 delegates to the NCOP voted in favour of the Appropriation Bill, with support from the ANC, DA, IFP, Freedom Front Plus, Patriotic Alliance, and the UDM. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ The EFF and MK Party voted against with nine votes. 'Accordingly the Bill is agreed to in terms of Section 75 of the Constitution,' said NCOP chairperson Refilwe Mtsweni-Tsipane when she announced the voting results. The Bill will now be sent to President Cyril Ramaphosa for assent and government departments allocated funds will start implementing their approved spending plans. ANC MP Cecilia Sylvia Nxumalo said the budget will improve the three priorities of the GNU, support infrastructure development, and allocate funds for the social protection programme. 'We will ensure robust oversight and accountability of allocated funds. We call on all accounting officers to take decisive action against mismanagement of funds and the findings of the Auditor-General should be responded to effectively,' said Nxumalo. DA MP Denis Ryder said the Budget proposals reflected a compromise position that can take South Africa forward. 'What we have today is a product of strong political and technical engagement and application. What we have today is a Budget that deserves a chance to show South Africa what can be done,' said, Ryder, adding that VAT increases were avoided and they have seen a move against tainted ministers. He also said that while no budget was perfect, balancing the many needs and desires of people within limited resources meant that there would always be disappointments. 'This is a symptom of a lack of economic growth. If this Budget is to succeed, it needs a strong focus on the little we have on projects that ignite growth and create jobs for ordinary South Africans while cutting wastage and corruption activities.' Ryder also said it was important that the portfolio committee ensured funds were spent efficiently and the spending reviews were important to do the right thing for the people. MK Party's Mmabatho Mokoena said her party would not pretend the Budget was for the people. 'In reality, it is a lifeline for your corrupt politicians, failing and bloated departments that can never deliver a simple toilet without a scandal. You call it the appreciation bill. We call it a misappropriation bonanza,' Mokoena said. 'The MP Party objects loudly and proudly because we were not sent here to clap for crumbs. We were sent here to hold the line for the poor, the hungry, and the forgotten.' EFF MP Mathapelo Siwisa said they could not agree to an austerity Budget. Siwisa said they made proposals on all departments to express the frustrations and desperation of the people. 'We don't object to the departments' budgets. When we stand up here and reject the proposed Budget, we are not objecting to service delivery. We are objecting to a senseless Budget. This Bill is a mockery to our people as it misses critical funding in basic education, health, road, and water infrastructure,' she said, adding that the Bill should be amended. IFP MP Les Govender said the allocation of budgets to every department was essential. 'If we do not give budgets to those departments, how do we provide services to the very people that I'm surprised that we parties are saying we object to the Budget, but they want services to their people now, here to speak in their interest. 'Now, if you take municipalities, for example, they are the core of service delivery. If you do not allocate budgets to them, how do they give services to our people?' Govender said. Freedom Front Plus MP Tamarin Breedt noted that the majority of spending allocation was to essential services like education, health, and social development. 'The VF Plus remains concerned about value for money. Billions are appropriated, but outcomes remain disappointing, especially at the local government level.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store