THE PROMOTION OF

ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE
ACT:

LEGAL REVIEW & REMEDIES

 THE PROMOTION OF
ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE ACT
(PAJA):
1. BASIC CONCEPTS: APPLICATION & PURPOSE OF PAJA
2. BASIC CONCEPTS: LEGALITY
3. BASIC CONCEPTS: DEFINITIONS
4. BASIC CONCEPTS: EXCLUSIONS
5. PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS & RIGHT TO REASONS
6. OTHER GROUNDS OF REVIEW + REMEDIES
?
 PART 6:

GROUNDS OF REVIEW
 SECTION 6 PAJA - INTRODUCTION

• SECTION 6 OF PAJA STATES THE GROUNDS IN

TERMS OF WHICH THE COURTS MAY REVIEW
AND SET ASIDE A DECISION.

• IT SEEKS TO CODIFY THE COMMON LAW

GROUNDS OF REVIEW.
 SECTION 6 PAJA - INTRODUCTION

• SECTION 6(2) PROVIDES NINE GROUNDS OF

REVIEW AND SOME GROUNDS HAVE SUB-
PROVISIONS THAT PROVIDE SEPARATE AND
DISJUNCTIVE GROUNDS OF REVIEW.
 SECTION 6 PAJA - INTRODUCTION

• UNDER THE COMMON LAW IT WAS NOT UNCOMMON

TO ATTACK A SINGLE DECISION USING A VARIETY
OF DIFFERENT GROUNDS OF REVIEW.
• THERE IS NOTHING IN THE SECTION TO SUGGEST
THAT THIS PRACTICE SHOULD NOT CONTINUE.
ALTHOUGH THE GROUNDS OF REVIEW ARE
DISJUNCTIVE, THEY OVERLAP AND A SINGLE
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION MAY BE SUSCEPTIBLE TO
REVIEW UNDER A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT GROUNDS.
 SECTION 6 PAJA – 1ST CLUSTER

• 1ST CLUSTER: FOCUS ON THE ADMINISTRATOR

• THE FIRST CLUSTER FOCUSES ON THE
ADMINISTRATOR WHO UNDERTOOK THE
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AND ALLOWS A REVIEW OF
THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION IF THE PERSON
EXERCISING THE POWER LACKED THE AUTHORITY
TO DO SO, HAD POWER DELEGATED TO HIM OR HER
IN AN UNAUTHORIZED MANNER, OR WAS BIASED.
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 1

• SEC 6(A)(I): WAS NOT AUTHORISED TO DO SO

BY THE EMPOWERING PROVISION + SEC 6(A)
(II): ACTED UNDER A DELEGATION OF POWER
WHICH WAS NOT AUTHORISED BY THE
EMPOWERING PROVISION = LACK OF
AUTHORITY OR THE WRONG PERSON MAKING
THE DECISION: UNLAWFUL DELEGATION
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 1

• ACTING UNDER DICTATION (TAKING

DIRECTIONS) –
• THIS WHERE YOU HAVE A DECISION WHICH
APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE PERSON
AUTHORISED TO TAKE THE DECISION BUT IN FACT
HE IS TAKING THE DECISION AT THE BEHEST OF, OR
UNDER THE CONTROL (OR DICTATION) OF, ANOTHER
UNAUTHORISED PERSON.
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 1

• ‘PASSING THE BUCK’ –

• THIS WHERE A DECISION IS REFERRED BY AN
AUTHORISED ADMINISTRATOR TO AN
UNAUTHORISED PERSON FOR ACTION.
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 1

• BIAS –
• SEC 6(A)(III): WAS BIASED OR REASONABLY
SUSPECTED OF BIAS

• SECTION 6 (2) (A) (III) REFERS TO A REASONABLE

SUSPICION OF BIAS RATHER THAN ADOPTING
THE MORE ACCEPTABLE FORMULATION OF A
REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF BIAS
SUGGESTED BY THE CC.
?
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 2
• SEC 6(2)(B): A MANDATORY AND MATERIAL
PROCEDURE OR CONDITION PRESCRIBED BY AN
EMPOWERING PROVISION WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH =
• MANY STATUTES AND REGULATIONS IN GRANTING
POWER IMPOSE CONDITIONS THAT MUST BE SATISFIED
PRIOR TO THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER.
• FOR INSTANCE, S 32 OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN SCHOOLS ACT
ALLOWS THE MEC TO CLOSE A PUBLIC SCHOOL ONLY
AFTER INFORMING THE GOVERNING BODY OF THIS
INTENTION AND HEARING THEIR REPRESENTATIONS.
?
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 3

• THE 3RD CLUSTER - SECTION 6(2)(C): THE ACTION

WAS PROCEDURALLY UNFAIR

• ONE MAY REVIEW ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION UNDER

S 6 OF PAJA IF THE ACTION WAS PROCEDURALLY
UNFAIR. THE CONCEPT OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS
HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE PREVIOUS LECTURES.
?
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 4

• THE 4TH CLUSTER - SECTION 6(2)(D): THE

ACTION WAS MATERIALLY INFLUENCED BY
AN ERROR OF LAW
• THIS GROUND OF REVIEW ALLOWS ONE TO
CHALLENGE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION THAT
WAS MATERIALLY INFLUENCED BY AN ERROR
OF LAW.
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 4

DETECTING MATERIALITY:

• IF CAN ESTABLISH THAT THE OUTCOME OF

DECISION WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME
IRRESPECTIVE OF THE CORRECT OR INCORRECT
INTERPRETATION THEN THE ERROR IS NOT
MATERIAL AS HAS NOT CHANGED THE
OUTCOME.
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 4

DETECTING MATERIALITY:

• BUT IF CORRECT INTERPRETATION AND

REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION FOR DECISION - IF
MATERIAL CHANGED CONSEQUENCES THEN
MUST BE ABLE TO SET ASIDE. PAJA ONLY
CONCERNED WITH IS A MATERIAL ERROR OF
LAW - IT CONFIRMED HIRA.
?
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 5
• THE FIFTH CLUSTER OF REVIEW DEALS WITH
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION TAKEN (ABUSE OF
DISCRETION): SECTION 6(2)(E)
• 1) FOR A REASON NOT AUTHORISED BY THE EMPOWERING
PROVISION;
• 2) FOR AN ULTERIOR PURPOSE OR MOTIVE;
• 3) BECAUSE IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS WERE TAKEN
INTO ACCOUNT AND RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS NOT;
• 4) BECAUSE OF THE UNAUTHORISED OR UNWARRANTED
DICTATES OF ANOTHER PERSON OR BODY;
• 5) IN BAD FAITH OR
• 6) ARBITRARILY OR CAPRICIOUSLY.
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 5

• FOR A REASON NOT AUTHORISED BY THE

EMPOWERING STATUTE:
• WHERE A POWER IS GRANTED FOR ONE PURPOSE
IT CANNOT VALIDLY BE EXERCISED FOR ANY
ULTERIOR PURPOSE. IF THE ACTION IS FOR AN
UNAUTHORISED PURPOSE, THEN IT WILL BE SET
ASIDE EVEN IF THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY WAS
WELL INTENTIONED OR EVEN IF THE ACTION
BENEFITED THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL.
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 5

• ACTION TAKEN FOR AN ULTERIOR PURPOSE

OR MOTIVE:
• CLOSELY LINKED TO THE PRECEDING REVIEW
GROUND IS THAT ADMINISTRATORS ARE NOT
ENTITLED TO USE THE DISCRETION GIVEN TO
THEM FOR ULTERIOR OR IMPROPER
PURPOSES.
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 5

• ACTION TAKEN FOR AN ULTERIOR PURPOSE

OR MOTIVE:
• POWERS MUST BE EXERCISED FOR PURPOSES
GRANTED FOR & THEREFORE NOT PERSONAL
GAIN, NOT OTHER PURPOSES, EVEN IF
LAUDABLE
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 5
• INSTANCES WHERE THE DECISION MAKER TOOK
IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS INTO ACCOUNT OR
FAILED TO CONSIDER RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS:
• THE COURTS WILL SET ASIDE DECISIONS THAT HAVE
FAILED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT CONSIDERATIONS
WHICH ARE DEEMED TO BE RELEVANT TO THE EXERCISE
OF THE DISCRETION; THEY WILL ALSO SET ASIDE THE
DECISION WHERE THE DECISION-MAKER HAS ALLOWED
HER DECISION TO BE INFLUENCED BY IRRELEVANT
CONSIDERATIONS.
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 5

• ADMINISTRATION ACTION TAKEN BECAUSE

OF THE UNAUTHORISED OR UNWARRANTED
DICTATES OF ANOTHER PERSON OR BODY:
• THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION WILL BE SET ASIDE
IF IT WAS MADE BY THE AUTHORISED PERSON BUT
AT THE DICTATES OF A PERSON NOT EMPOWERED
BY THE ENABLING LEGISLATION WHO NOT
AUTHORISED TO MAKE THE DECISION.
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 5

• ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION TAKEN IN BAD

FAITH:
• FUNDAMENTAL TO THE EXERCISE OF PUBLIC
POWER IS THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE DECISION
MUST NOT BE MOTIVATED BY FRAUD,
DISHONESTY, MALICE OR PERSONAL SELF-
INTEREST. THESE ARE DECISIONS WHICH ARE
MOTIVATED BY MORAL TURPITUDE OR
IMPROPRIETY
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 5
• ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION WHICH IS ARBITRARY OR
CAPRICIOUS:
• THIS REFERS TO DECISIONS WHICH ARE MADE RANDOMLY
WITHOUT ANY APPLICATION OF THE MIND.
• FLIPPING A COIN WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION TO DETERMINE
WHO THE SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATE SHOULD BE WILL BE
AN EXAMPLE.
• THIS GROUND OF REVIEW CLEARLY OVERLAPS WITH
MANY OTHERS, MOST NOTABLY ULTERIOR PURPOSES,
MALA FIDES AND UNREASONABLENESS.
?
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 6

• SEC 6(2)(F): IS NOT RATIONALLY CONNECTED TO

THE PURPOSE…

• CLUSTER 6 IS DIVIDED INTO TWO PARTS AND

FOCUSES ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ITSELF.
• THE FIRST PART - IF THE ACTION CONTRAVENES
A LAW OR IS NOT AUTHORISED (S 6(2)(F)(I)).
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 6

• THE SECOND PART (S 6(2)(F)(II)) - IF IT IS NOT

RATIONALLY CONNECTED TO:
• THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT WAS TAKEN;
• THE PURPOSE OF THE EMPOWERING PROVISION;
• THE INFORMATION BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR;
• THE REASONS GIVEN FOR IT BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR.
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 6

• REVIEW FOR IRRATIONALITY

• “RATIONALITY IN THIS SENSE IS A MINIMUM
THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT APPLICABLE TO THE
EXERCISE OF ALL PUBLIC POWER BY MEMBERS OF THE
EXECUTIVE AND OTHER FUNCTIONARIES. “
• “ACTION THAT FAILS TO PASS THIS THRESHOLD IS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF OUR
CONSTITUTION, AND THEREFORE UNLAWFUL.
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 6

• REVIEW FOR IRRATIONALITY

• “AS LONG AS THE PURPOSE SOUGHT TO BE ACHIEVED BY
THE EXERCISE OF THE PUBLIC POWER IS WITHIN THE
AUTHORITY OF THE FUNCTIONARY, AND AS LONG AS
THE FUNCTIONARY’S DECISION, VIEWED OBJECTIVELY,
IS RATIONAL, A COURT CANNOT INTERFERE WITH THE
DECISION SIMPLY BECAUSE IT DISAGREES WITH IT, OR
CONSIDERS THAT THE POWER WAS EXERCISED
INAPPROPRIATELY.”
?
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 7

• DEALT WITH IN SECTION 6(2)(G) AND 6(3):

FAILURE TO TAKE A DECISION

• THIS GROUND OF REVIEW DEALS WITH A FAILURE ON THE PART OF

THE ADMINISTRATOR TO TAKE A DECISION WHERE A DUTY EXISTS
TO MAKE A DECISION.

• THIS SECTION MUST BE READ WITH S 6(3) OF PAJA. THE GROUND OF

REVIEW RELATES TO INSTANCES WHERE THE ADMINISTRATOR,
DESPITE HAVING A DUTY TO MAKE THE DECISION, FAILS TO MAKE A
DECISION.
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 7

FAILURE TO TAKE A DECISION

• THEREFORE, WHERE AN OFFICIAL HAS A

DISCRETION TO MAKE A DECISION, HE MAY
NOT SIMPLY IGNORE THE ISSUE – AS A
CONSEQUENCE OF THIS DUTY, AN
ADMINISTRATOR MAY BE REQUIRED BY A
COURT TO EXERCISE THEIR POWERS OR TO
COMPLY WITH THEIR DUTIES.
?
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 8

SECTION 6(2)(H): REASONABLE ADMIN ACTION –

• NB: ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION TO BE REVIEWED ON THE

GROUNDS OF UNREASONABLENESS IF THE EXERCISE OF THE
POWER OR THE PERFORMANCE OF THE FUNCTION IS SO
UNREASONABLE THAT NO REASONABLE PERSON COULD HAVE
SO EXERCISED THE POWER OR PERFORMED THE FUNCTION.

• IT IS THE EXERCISE OF A POWER OR THE DISCHARGE OF A

FUNCTION THAT MAY BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW FOR
UNREASONABLENESS.
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 8

• SECTION 6(2)(H): REASONABLE ADMIN

ACTION – PROBLEM
• THE DIFFICULTY WITH FULL-BLOWN
REASONABLENESS REVIEW IS THIS: IT CAN
LEAD JUDGES TO UTILISE THEIR REVIEW POWER
TO FRUSTRATE THE CHOICES MADE BY PUBLIC
AUTHORITIES IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR
DEMOCRATIC MANDATES.
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 8
MUST SHOW:
• (A) THE DECISION MAKER HAS CONSIDERED ALL SERIOUS
OBJECTIONS TO THE DECISION TAKEN AND HAS ANSWERS WHICH
PLAUSIBLY MEET THEM;
• (B) THE DECISION MAKER HAS CONSIDERED ALL THE SERIOUS
ALTERNATIVES TO THE DECISION TAKEN, AND HAS DISCARDED
THEM FOR PLAUSIBLE REASONS; AND
• (C) THERE IS A RATIONAL CONNECTION BETWEEN PREMISES
AND CONCLUSIONS - BETWEEN THE INFORMATION (EVIDENCE
AND ARGUMENT) BEFORE THE DECISION MAKER AND THE
DECISION TAKEN.
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 8

• SECTION 6(2)(H): REASONABLE ADMIN ACTION –

BATO STAR

• BATO STAR FISHING (PTY) LTD V MINISTER OF

ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS 2004 (7) BCLR 687 (CC)
HELD THAT DESPITE THE RESTRICTIVE WORDING
OF SECTION 6(2)(H), THE REAL TEST IS WHETHER
THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION IS ONE WHICH A
REASONABLE DECISION MAKER COULD NOT REACH.
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 8
• SECTION 6(2)(H): REASONABLE ADMIN ACTION – BATO STAR

• ALLOCATION OF FISHING QUOTAS TO VARIOUS FISHING

COMPANIES IN THE WESTERN CAPE.
• BS WAS A BEE COMPANY WHOSE FOCUS WAS INITIALLY ON
ABALONE FISHING - AFTER GROWTH IT WANTED TO MAKE A MOVE
INTO THE MORE LUCRATIVE AREA OF ‘DEEP SEA HAKE TRAWLING’.

• IN TERMS OF THE MARINE LIVING RESOURCES ACT, PARTIES THAT

WANTED TO FISH HAD TO APPLY TO THE CHIEF DIRECTOR OF
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS FOR PERMISSION – THIS ENSURED THAT
AREAS WERE NOT OVER FISHED.
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 8

• BS PREVIOUSLY HAD A PERMIT TO FISH A

CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL
ALLOWABLE CATCH (TAC) IN THE AREA OF THE
WESTERN CAPE.
• ITS NEW APPLICATION WAS FOR 12 TIMES THAT
AMOUNT. THIS APPLICATION WAS REJECTED.
• BS TOOK THE DECISION TO COURT, ARGUING
THAT THE REFUSAL OF THE APPLICATION WAS
UNREASONABLE.
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 8

• IN DETERMINING WHETHER A DECISION IS REASONABLE, O’

REGAN J HELD AT PARA 45:

• “WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A REASONABLE DECISION WILL

DEPEND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE, MUCH AS
WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A FAIR PROCEDURE WILL DEPEND
ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE.

• THE COURT SHOULD TAKE CARE NOT TO USURP THE

FUNCTIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES: IF DECISIONS
FALL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF REASONABLENESS AS
REQUIRED BY THE CONSTITUTION.”
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 8

• SECTION 6(2)(H): REASONABLE ADMIN ACTION – BATO

STAR

• FACTORS RELEVANT TO DETERMINING WHETHER A

DECISION IS REASONABLE OR NOT WILL INCLUDE THE
NATURE OF THE DECISION, THE IDENTITY AND EXPERTISE
OF THE DECISION-MAKER, THE RANGE OF FACTORS
RELEVANT TO THE DECISION, THE REASONS GIVEN FOR
THE DECISION, THE NATURE OF THE COMPETING
INTERESTS INVOLVED AND THE IMPACT OF THE DECISION
ON THE LIVES AND WELL-BEING OF THOSE AFFECTED.
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 8

• SECTION 6(2)(H): REASONABLE ADMIN ACTION

– BATO STAR RE DEFERENCE / RESPECT
• COURT SHOULD BE CAREFUL NOT TO ATTRIBUTE
TO ITSELF SUPERIOR WISDOM IN RELATION TO
MATTERS ENTRUSTED TO OTHER BRANCHES OF
GOVERNMENT – PARA 48
• COURT SHOULD PAY DUE RESPECT TO THE ROUTE
SELECTED BY THE DECISION-MAKER
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 8

• SECTION 6(2)(H): REASONABLE ADMIN ACTION –

BATO STAR

• BUT A COURT SHOULD NOT TREAT RESPECT AS

SOMETHING THAT PREVENTS IT FROM SETTING ASIDE
AN UNREASONABLE DECISION; A COURT ‘SHOULD
NOT RUBBER-STAMP AN UNREASONABLE DECISION
SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE COMPLEXITY OF THE
DECISION OR THE IDENTITY OF THE DECISION MAKER’.
?
 SECTION 6 PAJA – CLUSTER 9
• SECTION 6(2)(I) MAKES PROVISION FOR OTHER –
UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR UNLAWFUL.
• OPEN ENDED – CAN IDENTIFY MORE
• EXAMPLES:
• UNLAWFUL FETTERING
• PRINCIPLE: WHO IS DECISION-MAKER WHO MUST EXERCISE
DISCRETION?
• THAT PERSON HAS TO EXERCISE DISCRETION
• FETTERING – LIMITATION ON EXERCISE OF DISCRETION
• NOT EXPLICIT / SINGLE GROUND OF REVIEW IN PAJA
?
 PART 6:

REMEDIES IN TERMS OF PAJA

 SECTION 8: REMEDIES

• SECTION 8 OF PAJA STIPULATES THE

REMEDIES THAT MAY BE AWARDED IF
JUDICIAL REVIEW IS SUCCESSFULLY
INSTITUTED.
 SECTION 8: REMEDIES
• S8(1) THE COURT OR TRIBUNAL…MAY GRANT ANY
ORDER THAT IS JUST AND EQUITABLE, INCLUDING
ORDERS-
• (A) DIRECTING THE ADMINISTRATOR-
• (I) TO GIVE REASONS; OR
• (II) TO ACT IN THE MANNER THE COURT OR
TRIBUNAL REQUIRES;
• (B) PROHIBITING THE ADMINISTRATOR FROM
 SECTION 8: REMEDIES
• (C) SETTING ASIDE THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
AND –
• (I) REMITTING THE MATTER FOR
RECONSIDERATION BY THE ADMINISTRATOR,
WITH OR WITHOUT DIRECTIONS OR
• (II) IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES-
• (AA) SUBSTITUTING OR VARYING THE
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION OR CORRECTING A
DEFECT RESULTING FROM THE
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION;
 SECTION 8: REMEDIES

• (D) DECLARING THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES IN

RESPECT OF ANY MATTER TO WHICH THE
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION RELATES;
• (E) GRANTING A TEMPORARY INTERDICT OR
OTHER TEMPORARY RELIEF; OR
• (F) AS TO COSTS.”
TENDERS
 SECTION 8: REMEDIES

• IN OLITZKI THE SCA EXPLAINED THAT THERE

ARE ‘POWERFUL REASONS OF POLICY’ WHY AN
UNSUCCESSFUL TENDERER IS GENERALLY NOT
ENTITLED TO DAMAGES WHETHER
INDEPENDENTLY IN DELICT OR AS
‘APPROPRIATE RELIEF’ UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION.
 SECTION 8: REMEDIES

• THE SECHABA CASE MAKES CLEAR THAT AN

EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE IS
WHERE THE TENDERER WAS ‘DISHONESTLY
DEPRIVED OF A CONTRACT WHICH IT
WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN
AWARDED’.
 SECTION 8: REMEDIES

• BUT EVEN IN THE CASE OF FRAUD OR

DISHONESTY THE UNSUCCESSFUL TENDERER
HAS TO ESTABLISH, ON A BALANCE OF
PROBABILITIES, THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
AWARDED THE TENDER BUT FOR THE
FRAUDULENT OR DISHONEST CONDUCT.
?
THE END