Alberts v University of Johannesburg [2024] 01366-23 (GJ)

Let’s dive into the case of Alberts v University of Johannesburg [2024] 01366-23 (GJ).

Court and date of decision

High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Johannesburg, 14 June 2024

Key facts

• Professor Vivian Alberts, a physics professor at the University of Johannesburg (UJ), was involved in developing thin-film photovoltaic solar technology.
• UJ incorporated Photovoltaic Technology Intellectual Property (Pty) Ltd (PTiP) for commercial application of this technology.
• The Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) and Innovative Investment Corporation (Pty) Ltd (IIC) funded the PTiP.
• Due to alleged fraudulent activities by individuals associated with IIC, PTiP struggled and eventually ceased operations in 2017, later entering liquidation.

Application

• Professor Alberts, through his attorneys, requested records from UJ under the PAIA, seeking information related to the failed PTiP.
• UJ refused, and Professor Alberts appealed internally and then sought court intervention to overturn UJ’s refusal and gain access to the records he requested.

Discussion

• UJ argued that Professor Alberts was not the requester under PAIA; rather, the requester was PTiP.
• According to section 78 of PAIA, only the requester can apply to court for access to records.
• The court had to determine whether Professor Alberts acted as a requester or if PTiP should have been the one to request access.
• The evidence showed that the request was made on behalf of PTiP, with Professor Alberts acting as a director.

Findings

• The court found that PTiP was the requester, not Professor Alberts.
• Since PAIA stipulates that only the requester can apply for access to records, Professor Alberts was non-suited.
• However, his failure to secure the records did not warrant a cost order against him due to the public interest in the matter.

Order

The court (Unterhalter J) dismissed the application.

Practical impact for clients

This decision emphasises the importance of correctly identifying the requester in PAIA applications. Clients must ensure that requests for information are made by the appropriate entity or individual to avoid legal setbacks.

Recommended actions

1. Correct requester identification: Ensure you’ve correctly identified and authorised the entity or individual making the request for information.
2. Proper documentation: Maintain clear and accurate documentation when acting on behalf of a company or organisation.
3. Legal clarity: Consult legal experts to confirm the proper procedure and avoid technical dismissals.

How ITLawCo can help

ITLawCo specialises in providing legal support for access to information and intellectual property issues. Our team assists in:

• ensuring correct and compliant PAIA requests.
• providing strategic advice and support in disputes involving access to information.
• navigating complex legal frameworks to protect and enforce your rights.

By leveraging ITLawCo’s expertise, clients can effectively manage legal processes and protect their interests. Contact us today.

Read the whole case

Access the full case.