Authored by Jakop Mphofu and Michael Homveld  

On 5 June 2026 the High Court held that the International Air Services Council acted unlawfully when it applied B‑BBEE or other race‑based requirements to applications under the International Air Services Act of 1993. The court set aside the impugned decision and declared the Council’s policy and practice of adding criteria not found in the Act or its regulations to be unlawful. 

The dispute arose because the Council had assessed licence applications against factors drawn from section 10(1) of the B‑BBEE Act. Those factors do not appear in the International Air Services Act nor its regulations. The court found that the Council had exceeded its powers by importing external policy into a self‑contained statutory scheme. A regulator must stay within the four corners of its empowering statute. Broader policy objectives cannot be enforced through licensing unless the legislature has said so in clear terms. 

The order went beyond a single decision. The court declared the Council’s conduct, policy, and practice unlawful. That clarification matters for applicants who have been asked to meet extra‑statutory requirements. It also matters for the Council, which must confine its assessments to the statutory criteria. The message is simple: if a requirement is not in the Act or regulations, it is not a hurdle an applicant must clear. 

The court also excused the applicant from using the internal appeal contemplated in section 37 of the Act. Relying on section 7(2)(c) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act of 2000, it found that insisting on the internal route was not required on the facts. That avoided delay and allowed the legality issue to be resolved directly by the court. 

For applicants, the practical points are clear. When preparing an application for an international air service licence, focus on the Act and its regulations and address those criteria comprehensively. If additional requirements are demanded, consider whether there is a statutory basis for the request. For regulators, the judgment is a reminder to align processes and templates with the empowering legislation and to avoid importing policy aims that the statute does not enact. 

Sakeliga NPC v International Air Services Council and Others, Gauteng Division, Pretoria, 5 June 2026 (Case No. 2025‑177321).