A legal update on Sakeliga NPC v International Air Services Council (Gauteng Division, Pretoria, 5 June 2026)
The Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria has held that the International Air Services Council (the IASC) acts unlawfully when it brings Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) or other race-based considerations into the licensing of international air services. The ruling, handed down by Bam J on 5 June 2026 in Sakeliga NPC v International Air Services Council, was granted on an unopposed basis after the application went unchallenged. For airlines operating routes into and out of South Africa, it removes a licensing hurdle that had no footing in the governing statute.
The regulator and its mandate
International air services in South Africa are licensed under the International Air Services Act, 1993 (the Act). The IASC is the body the Act creates for that purpose: it receives and decides the licence applications lodged by carriers wishing to fly international routes to and from the country. Its decision-making powers are drawn from, and bounded by, the Act and the regulations made under it.
How the matter came to court
The dispute had its origins in the domestic licensing sphere. Sakeliga NPC (Sakeliga) says it learned in 2023 that the local regulator, the Air Services Licensing Council (the ASLC), was refusing to renew licences on the strength of provisions drawn from the B-BBEE regulations. Sakeliga opened a formal investigation, and in the course of it received reports from foreign embassies that the IASC was applying comparable race-based conditions to international carriers.
Sakeliga first pursued the domestic regulator. Once that litigation against the ASLC had run its course, it turned to the IASC, launching proceedings in October 2025. When the matter was called on 5 June 2026 it was unopposed, and the court granted the relief sought.
What the order does
The order is broad in its reach. In substance, the court found unlawful every facet of the IASC’s reliance on what the order labels the “Impugned Criteria” that is, the criteria in section 10(1) of the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act, 2003, together with any consideration falling outside the Act itself. Specifically, the court:
- reviewed, set aside and declared unlawful the IASC’s decision to apply the Impugned Criteria when adjudicating licence applications;
- declared unlawful the IASC’s conduct in imposing those criteria;
- declared unlawful the IASC’s policy and practice of building the Impugned Criteria into the licence-application process; and
- declared unlawful the IASC’s conduct in attaching race-based requirements that fall outside the Act and its regulations to licensing decisions.
The court also dealt with a procedural obstacle in Sakeliga’s favour, exempting it from the requirement to first exhaust the internal appeal mechanism provided for in section 37 of the Act before approaching the court.
What it means going forward
Three practical consequences follow.
Licensing returns to its statutory footing. Applications for international air service licences must be measured against the criteria the Act and its regulations actually prescribe and nothing imported from outside that framework.
International carriers gain certainty. Operators offering passenger, freight and other international air services may apply for and renew their licences without having to establish B-BBEE compliance as a condition of doing so.
A wider signal. Beyond the aviation sector, the outcome illustrates that race-based conditions imposed by a South African regulator can be set aside where they have no basis in the empowering legislation, a point of interest to foreign carriers, international businesses and overseas governments watching how such requirements are applied at the border of regulatory authority.
This update is provided for general information and does not constitute legal advice. For assistance with aviation, regulatory or administrative-law matters in South Africa or Lesotho, please contact Mayet & Associates Inc.
