Botha En Ander v Lid van die Uitvoerende Raad: Plaaslike Regering en Behuising: Vrystaat Provinsie En Anders (R182/07) [2009] ZAFSHC 64 (25 May 2009)

Botha En Ander v Lid van die Uitvoerende Raad: Plaaslike Regering en Behuising: Vrystaat Provinsie En Anders (R182/07) [2009] ZAFSHC 64 (25 May 2009)

The court found that the decision to approve the rezoning and removal of restrictions on Erf 6720 was lawful and rationally connected to the evidence and reasons provided. The permissible uses for 'business centre' were sufficiently described in the published approval and did not require a formal definition for validity. The Dorperaad hearing was procedurally fair; the refusal to grant a postponement was justified given prior opportunities and tactical decisions by the applicants. The application for amendment of the town-planning scheme could lawfully be brought by Cebo Environmental Consultants BK with municipal consent, consistent with established practice. The Dorperaad was properly...

Citation
[2009] ZAFSHC 64
Parties
Applicant: Joseph Francois Botha and 14 Others; Respondent: Lid van die Uitvoerende Raad: Plaaslike Regering en Behuising: Vrystaat Provinsie; Respondent: Die Voorsitter van die Dorperaad: Vrystaat Provinsie; Respondent: Dorperaad: Vrystaat Provinsie; Respondent: Cebo Environmental Consultants BK; Respondent: Andrew George Scholtz; Respondent: Andrew George Scholtz (in his capacity as Trustee of the Jo-Ann Trust); Respondent: Mangaung Plaaslike Munisipaliteit
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 May 2009
Case Number
R182/07
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel for the first, second, and third respondents, and two counsel for the fourth, fifth, and sixth respondents.
Judges
Kruger R, Mocumie R
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Removal of Restrictions Act, Town Planning Scheme Amendment, Municipal Practice, Review of Administrative Action, Rezoning
Administrative Law Land and Property Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Removal of Restrictions Act Town Planning Scheme Amendment Municipal Practice Review of Administrative Action +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Francois Botha and 14 Others

Applicant

Lid van die Uitvoerende Raad: Plaaslike Regering en Behuising: Vrystaat Provinsie

Respondent

Die Voorsitter van die Dorperaad: Vrystaat Provinsie

Respondent

Dorperaad: Vrystaat Provinsie

Respondent

Cebo Environmental Consultants BK

Respondent

Andrew George Scholtz

Respondent

Andrew George Scholtz (in his capacity as Trustee of the Jo-Ann Trust)

Respondent

Mangaung Plaaslike Munisipaliteit

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision to approve the rezoning and removal of restrictions on Erf 6720 was procedurally and substantively lawful.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a definition for 'business centre' invalidated the approval.
  3. 3 Whether the refusal to grant a postponement at the Dorperaad hearing constituted procedural unfairness.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the decision to approve the rezoning and removal of restrictions on Erf 6720 was lawful and rationally connected to the evidence and reasons provided. The permissible uses for 'business centre' were sufficiently described in the published approval and did not require a formal definition for validity. The Dorperaad hearing was procedurally fair; the refusal to grant a postponement was justified given prior opportunities and tactical decisions by the applicants. The application for amendment of the town-planning scheme could lawfully be brought by Cebo Environmental Consultants BK with municipal consent, consistent with established practice. The Dorperaad was properly...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel for the first, second, and third respondents, and two counsel for the fourth, fifth, and sixth respondents.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • Applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the first, second, and third respondents, including the costs of two counsel.