Mtho Maphumulo, Dispute Resolution attorney

The judgment of the Free State Division of the High Court, delivered on 19 March 2026, serves as a compelling reminder that the decisions of professional regulatory bodies are not beyond scrutiny. The case concerned a Rule 53 review application brought by the applicant, a qualified accountant and Associate General Accountant member of the South African Institute of Chartered Accountants (“SAICA”), against the decision of SAICA's Professional Conduct Committee (“PCC”).

Brief summary of facts

The applicant practised as an accountant and general tax practitioner in Bloemfontein. In April 2021, the second respondent, a company represented by its chief executive officer, appointed her to provide accounting and tax consulting services. The mandate was terminated in November 2022, and following a breakdown of the trust relationship, the applicant ceased all further services.

On 11 May 2023, SAICA notified the applicant that the second respondent had filed a complaint against her, alleging that she had handled the management and control of the second respondent’s payroll system in an unprofessional and inadequate manner. Specifically, it was alleged that she was responsible for the payroll system and had only loaded eight employees onto the FNB payroll platform whilst the second respondent employed twenty-eight employees.

The applicant’s consistent case was that the management and control of the payroll were never her responsibility. According to her evidence, the second respondent’s chief executive officer himself dealt with the payroll on an Excel spreadsheet, which he would send to her solely for the purpose of generating payslips. She further explained that after loading the first eight employees onto the FNB platform, she discovered it did not meet the required specifications, and it was abandoned. Her version was supported by contemporaneous WhatsApp messages and pre-complaint correspondence from her attorneys. On 14 November 2023, a disciplinary hearing was conducted before the PCC, which found the applicant guilty of punishable conduct for failing to administer the second respondent’s payroll system and sanctioned her accordingly.

Issues for determination

The review application was brought in terms of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (“PAJA”), as SAICA exercises a public power in regulating the accounting profession. The principal issues were: first, whether the PCC proceedings were procedurally fair, particularly whether the applicant was adequately informed of the charge and whether the PCC decided the matter on the same basis as the charge put to her; second, whether the PCC properly applied the balance of probabilities test when confronted with two conflicting versions; third, whether the decision was rationally connected to the information before the PCC; and finally, whether the matter ought to be remitted to SAICA or whether the Court should substitute its own decision.

The court’s conclusions and reasons

On procedural fairness, the Court held that the PCC decided the matter on a distinctly different premise from the original charge. The complaint alleged that the applicant was responsible for managing and controlling the payroll system, yet during the hearing, the line of questioning by panel members shifted towards whether the applicant had a duty to identify and rectify payroll mistakes — an issue never forming part of the charge. The Court emphasised that section 3(2) of PAJA requires adequate notice of proposed administrative action, and at common law a person facing disciplinary proceedings is entitled to have the charge formulated with sufficient particularity. This marked shift in ground violated the procedural fairness of the proceedings, constituting a ground of review under section 6(2)(c) of PAJA.

On the balance of probabilities, the Court noted that SAICA’s own By-Law required the civil standard of proof and that SAICA bore the burden of proving that the complainant’s version was more probable than the applicant’s. The PCC gave no reasons for its decisions and there was no record of deliberations evaluating the probabilities. Whilst acknowledging that an administrative decision-maker is not expected to assess evidence with the same rigour as a court, the Court held that the PCC was nonetheless obligated to determine the probabilities, particularly when confronted with two mutually destructive versions. The failure to do so constituted a material error of law and a valid ground for review under PAJA.

Regarding rationality, the Court found no rational connection between the impugned decisions and the evidence before the PCC. The applicant’s uncontradicted evidence was that she was solely responsible for generating payslips and not for managing the payroll system, supported by contemporaneous WhatsApp messages and pre-complaint correspondence. Even the prosecutor on behalf of the Secretariat conceded during the hearing that the applicant was not responsible for the payroll system in totality, yet the PCC gave no indication of having considered this concession.

On remedy, the Court declined to remit the matter and instead substituted its own decision, holding that all evidence was already before the Court and that remittal would serve no useful purpose as the outcome was a foregone conclusion. The PCC’s decision was reviewed and set aside and substituted with a finding that the applicant did not contravene any of SAICA’s By-Laws or its Code of Professional Conduct.

The regulatory significance of this judgment

This judgment is significant for the regulation of professionals in South Africa. It affirms that the disciplinary decisions of professional regulators constitute administrative action subject to judicial review under PAJA, ensuring that members have recourse to the courts where proceedings are conducted unfairly or irrationally.

For members of professional bodies, this judgment stands as a powerful encouragement that where the facts necessitate a challenge, regulatory decisions should not be accepted without question. Judicial review provides an effective and necessary mechanism to vindicate the rights of affected professionals and serves as a vital check on regulatory overreach, reinforcing the rule of law in the regulation of professions.