City of Cape Town v Hendricks and Another (63/2011) [2012] ZASCA 90; 2012 (6) SA 492 (SCA) (31 May 2012)

City of Cape Town v Hendricks and Another (63/2011) [2012] ZASCA 90; 2012 (6) SA 492 (SCA) (31 May 2012)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the City's notices served on the respondents were not administrative action as defined by the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA). The notices merely informed the respondents of their contravention of municipal by-laws and warned of the consequences of non-compliance. They did not constitute a final decision, did not adversely affect the respondents' rights, and had no direct, external legal effect. The City's conduct was a preliminary step to enforce compliance with the law, as permitted by the relevant by-law. Therefore, the provisions of PAJA did not apply, and the High Court's orders reviewing and setting aside the City's actions were...

Citation
[2012] ZASCA 90
Parties
Appellant: City of Cape Town; Respondent: Faizel Hendricks; Respondent: Mogamat Smith
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 May 2012
Case Number
633/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; High Court orders set aside; application dismissed.
Judges
Nugent, Van Heerden, Snyders, Mhlantla, Southwood
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Municipal by Laws, Notice and Compliance, Trading Rights, Review of Administrative Action
Administrative Law Land and Property Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Municipal by Laws Notice and Compliance Trading Rights Review of Administrative Action

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

City of Cape Town

Appellant

Faizel Hendricks

Respondent

Mogamat Smith

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the City's notices to remove business structures constituted administrative action under PAJA.
  2. 2 Whether the City was obliged to afford the respondents an opportunity to make representations before issuing the notices.
  3. 3 Whether the High Court's orders were correctly granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the City's notices served on the respondents were not administrative action as defined by the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA). The notices merely informed the respondents of their contravention of municipal by-laws and warned of the consequences of non-compliance. They did not constitute a final decision, did not adversely affect the respondents' rights, and had no direct, external legal effect. The City's conduct was a preliminary step to enforce compliance with the law, as permitted by the relevant by-law. Therefore, the provisions of PAJA did not apply, and the High Court's orders reviewing and setting aside the City's actions were...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; High Court orders set aside; application dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside.