Odac

ODAC is involved in both litigating access to information and whistleblowing, and monitoring cases dealing with these issues.

Arms Deal Case - 1st to 3rd Respondents heads: This is an application for access to information.
Arms Deal Case - 4th Respondent Heads: In deciding whether it is just and equitable to grant the relief sought by applicant under the provisions of section 82 of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2 of 2000 (“the Act”), this Court will, we submit, have regard inter alia to : 1.1 the degree to which the applicant has established a legitimate right or interest requiring protection; proper particularisation of the information which is required and a rational and sufficient explanation demonstrating how that information will assist in the exercise or protection of the right; 1.2 that all persons likely to be affected by the grant of relief and having an interest in the proceedings have been joined; 1.3 the nature of the objections raised against the disclosure of documents by those joined; and 1.4 whether the relief is competent or desirable in the light of subsequent conduct by the applicant - in casu the institution of an action for damages.
Arms Deal Case - Applicant Heads: During the years 1998 to 2001 the acquisition of the Strategic Defence Package (“SDP”), the cost of which was initially R30,3 billion, which has since escalated, was highly topical. The furore has largely dissipated.
Arms Deal Case - CCII order of the court: Having Heard Counsel for the Parties and Having Read the Documents Filed in Court Reserved its Judgement.
Arms Deal Case - Judgment: During the years 1998 to 2001 the acquisition of the Strategic Defence Package (SDP) at an estimated cost of R30,3 billion was highly topical. Because of doubts, criticisms and allegations of impropriety the first respondent, the Auditor-General, performed a high level review but despite that, public disquiet persisted. During November 2000 the first, second and third respondents were appointed as a joint commission to investigate the propriety of the entire SDP. They conducted the investigation and eventually a report on 14 February 2001. It was accepted and approved by Parliament.
Arms Deal Case - ODAC Heads: The Open Democracy Advice Centre (hereinafter referred to as "ODAC" or "the amicus curiae") seeks to intervene in the matter between CCII Systems (Pty) Limited v Shauket Fakie NO and others Case No: 4636/2002 ("the main application") for purposes of making submissions relating to the application of section 32 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (“the Constitution”) and the relevant provisions of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, No. 2 of 2000 ("the PAI Act").
Biowatch GMO Case - Final Affidavit: ODAC is a non-profit non-governmental company registered in terms of section 21 of the Companies Act, No. 61 of 1973. It is an association between the Institute for Democracy in Southern Africa ("IDASA"), the Black Sash Trust and the Department of Public Law of the University of Cape Town.
Biowatch GMO Case - Heads of Argument for amicus curiae: Heads of argument filed on behalf of the Amicus Curiae
Biowatch GMO Case - Notice of Motion: Be pleased to take notice that the Open Democracy Advice Centre ("ODAC") applies to this Honourable Court for an order in the following terms:
Earthlife Africa (Cape Town branch) vs. Eskom Holdings: In this case an environmental organisation applies for leave to appeal against a judgment in the High Court.
Earthlife Africa (Cape Town branch) vs. Eskom Holdings - Final Affidavit: Applicant's founding affidavit
Earthlife Africa (Cape Town branch) vs. Eskom Holdings - Judgment : The applicant is a non-govermental, non profit voluntary association established by enviromental and social activists in Cape Town. The applicant was established to campaign against enviromental injustices in the Cape Town area and to participate in enviromental decision-making processes with a view of promoting and lobbying for good governance and informed and substainable decision-making. The applicant is an autonomous branch of Earthlife Africa, which has several branches throughout the Republic.
Earthlife Africa (Cape Town branch) vs. Eskom Holdings - Notice of motion: Be pleased to take notice that Earthlife Africa, Cape Town Branch, (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant) intends to make an application to this Honourable Court for an order in the following terms:
Hlatshwayo vs. Iscor - Founding Affidavit: The politics of production and forms of worker responses at ISCOR Vanderbijlpark Works, 1965-1973.
Hlatshwayo vs. Iscor - Notice of motion: Be pleased to take notice that the abovenamed Applicant intends to make application to this Honourable Court for an order in the following terms
Khulumani Support Grp vs. Mpilotutu -Replying aff Gunn: Replying Affidavit Filed On Behalf Of The First To Fifth Applicants
Nedcor Case - Applicants affidavit: I am an adult male married out of community of property residing at 13 Bottlebrush Street, Centurion. I am a lieutenant-colonel in the South African National Defence Force and have been in the employ of the Department of Defence since 1989. Respondent is Nedbank Limited, a public company conducting business as a commercial bank and duly incorporated in terms of the company laws of the Republic of South Africa, with its registered offices at 1st Floor, Finance Place, Nedcor Sandton, 135 Rivonia Lane, Sandown, Gauteng.
Nedcor Case - Notice of motion: Be pleased to take notice that the abovenamed Applicant intends to make an application to this Honourable Court for an order in the following terms:
Nedcor Case - Notice of withdrawal: Kindly withdraw this above-mentioned Application by agreement between the parties, on the basis that the Respondent disclosed the records requested in this application. Furthermore the Respondent have agreed to pay for Applicant’s costs on a client and own Counsel basis.
Nedcor Case - Press Release: A groundbreaking application in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act was served on one of the country’s largest banks, Nedbank Limited on 20 June 2003.
Party Political Funding - DA Final heads: In terms of s78(2) of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (“the Act” or “the Information Act”) an application to court for relief under s82 must be made within 30 days of the relevant event triggering the application. The DA has alleged in its answering papers (paras 3-6 record 588-589) that the 30-day period ran from the date of the DA’s refusal of access, namely 19 September 2003. If this is correct, the 30-day period expired on 19 October 2003. The present application was launched only on 25 November 2003, more than a month out of time.
Party Political Funding - IDASA vs. ANC: The applicants seek relief in terms of the provisions of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2 of 2001 ("the Act") and section 32 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 108 of 1996 ("the Constitution").
Party Political Funding - IDASA vs. ANC - ANC Heads of Argument Authorities: Anglo-Transvaal Collieries Ltd v South African Mutual Life Assurance Society 1977 (3) SA 631 (T) Bushbuck Ridge Border Committee and Another v Government of the Northern Province and Others 1999 (2) BCLR 193 (T)
Party Political Funding - IDASA vs. ANC - ANC Heads of Argument Final: The applicants seek relief in terms of the provisions of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2 of 2001 (“the Act”) and section 32 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 108 of 1996 (“the Constitution”).
Party Political Funding - IDASA vs. ANC - IDASA final heads: This is an application in which the applicants seek access to the respondents’1 donations records in respect of large donations. It is instituted by the Institute for Democracy in South Africa (“Idasa”), and two South African citizens. They bring the application in the public interest, in the interests of all South African citizens, and in their own interest.
Party Political Funding - IDASA vs. ANC - IDASA replying heads: In these replying heads of argument we deal with the main issues that arise from the argument advanced for the respondents. In the interests of clarity and brevity we however deal with the main issues upfront.
Theron v Department of Health and Department of Correctional Services.: Notice of motion, and founding affidavit.
Unitas hospital vs. Maria Magdalena Van Wyk: This case deals with a request for information from a private hospital.

Arms Deal Case - 1st to 3rd Respondents heads:

Arms Deal Case - 4th Respondent Heads:

Arms Deal Case - Applicant Heads:

Arms Deal Case - CCII order of the court:

Arms Deal Case - Judgment:

Arms Deal Case - ODAC Heads:

Biowatch GMO Case - Final Affidavit:

Biowatch GMO Case - Heads of Argument for amicus curiae:

Biowatch GMO Case - Notice of Motion:

Earthlife Africa (Cape Town branch) vs. Eskom Holdings:

Earthlife Africa (Cape Town branch) vs. Eskom Holdings - Final Affidavit:

Earthlife Africa (Cape Town branch) vs. Eskom Holdings - Judgment :

Earthlife Africa (Cape Town branch) vs. Eskom Holdings - Notice of motion:

Hlatshwayo vs. Iscor - Founding Affidavit:

Hlatshwayo vs. Iscor - Notice of motion:

Khulumani Support Grp vs. Mpilotutu -Replying aff Gunn:

Nedcor Case - Applicants affidavit:

Nedcor Case - Notice of motion:

Nedcor Case - Notice of withdrawal:

Nedcor Case - Press Release:

Party Political Funding - DA Final heads:

Party Political Funding - IDASA vs. ANC:

Party Political Funding - IDASA vs. ANC - ANC Heads of Argument Authorities:

Party Political Funding - IDASA vs. ANC - ANC Heads of Argument Final:

Party Political Funding - IDASA vs. ANC - IDASA final heads:

Party Political Funding - IDASA vs. ANC - IDASA replying heads:

Theron v Department of Health and Department of Correctional Services.:

Unitas hospital vs. Maria Magdalena Van Wyk: