Tabata, Nandile Ndiviwe2024-06-142024-06-142023-02-27Tabata, Nandile Ndiviwe. (2023). Looking back at Gijima: The evolution of self-review in South African administrative law [Master’s dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg]. WireDSpace. https://hdl.handle.net/10539/38664https://hdl.handle.net/10539/38664A research report submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Laws by Coursework and Research Report at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, 2023In State Information Technology Agency SOC Ltd v Gijima Holdings (Pty) Ltd 2018 (2) SA 23 (CC), the Constitutional Court held that the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 could not be relied on by organs of state who seek to review their own decisions and affirmed the principle of legality as the appropriate pathway for state self-reviews. The court suggested that the applicability of the principle of legality in self-reviews does not necessarily extend to cases concerning the judicial review of a decision of an organ of state by another organ of state or when self-reviews are instituted in the public interest in terms of s 38(d) of the Constitution. Gijima is a controversial judgment that has attracted considerable criticism from practitioners and scholars. The widespread criticism relates to the proliferation of PAJA-avoidance, the bifurcation between PAJA and the principle of legality and the judgment’s dilution of the delay rule. This Research Report reflects on the development of self-review in South African administrative law before Gijima; how self-review has evolved since the ground- breaking judgment; and how the courts have in subsequent judgments dealt with the murkiness caused by Gijima. The Research Report concludes that, on the face of it, Compcare Wellness Medical Scheme v Registrar of Medical Schemes 2021 (1) SA 15 (SCA) is a promising solution for the reform of self-review in South African administrative law. The Research Reportalso concludes that legislative intervention may be necessary to make the PAJA more widely applicable in self-review casesen© 2023 University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All rights reserved. The copyright in this work vests in the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.State Information Technology Agency SOC LtdGijima Holdings (Pty) LtdConstitutional CourtPromotion of Administrative Justice Act 3PAJA-avoidanceUCTDPAJA-avoidanceAdministrative lawDissertationUniversity of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg