City of Cape Town v Really Useful Investments 219 (Pty) Ltd (21106/2014) [2018] ZAWCHC 6; [2018] 2 All SA 65 (WCC) (2 February 2018)

City of Cape Town v Really Useful Investments 219 (Pty) Ltd (21106/2014) [2018] ZAWCHC 6; [2018] 2 All SA 65 (WCC) (2 February 2018)

The court held that the respondent's placement of fill material within the 1:100 year floodplain of the Disa River was in contravention of the City's Stormwater Management By-law, as no valid written consent had been granted under the By-law for such activities. The historical approvals from the RSC did not constitute consent under the current By-law, which requires authorization from the City or its delegated official. The respondent's activities also fell within the scope of section 31A of the Environment Conservation Act, as they resulted in or had the potential to result in serious environmental damage. The ECA directive was interpreted to apply to the entire floodplain up to the...

Citation
[2018] ZAWCHC 6
Parties
Applicant: City of Cape Town; Respondent: Really Useful Investments 219 (Pty) Ltd
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 February 2018
Case Number
21106/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted. Declaratory and mandatory orders issued in favour of the City. Costs awarded to the City up to 20 April 2017; thereafter, each party to bear its own costs.
Judges
Gamble
Legal Topics
Stormwater Management by Law, Environment Conservation Act Section 31a, Wetland Protection, Municipal Consent, Remedial Measures, Floodplain Management
Environmental Law Land and Property Administrative Law Stormwater Management by Law Environment Conservation Act Section 31a Wetland Protection Municipal Consent Remedial Measures +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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

City of Cape Town

Applicant

Really Useful Investments 219 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's placement of fill material within the 1:100 year floodplain contravened the City's Stormwater Management By-law and the Environment Conservation Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent had valid written consent under the By-law to undertake the activities in question.
  3. 3 Whether the City is entitled to enter the property and undertake remedial works at the respondent's expense.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondent's placement of fill material within the 1:100 year floodplain of the Disa River was in contravention of the City's Stormwater Management By-law, as no valid written consent had been granted under the By-law for such activities. The historical approvals from the RSC did not constitute consent under the current By-law, which requires authorization from the City or its delegated official. The respondent's activities also fell within the scope of section 31A of the Environment Conservation Act, as they resulted in or had the potential to result in serious environmental damage. The ECA directive was interpreted to apply to the entire floodplain up to the...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Declaratory and mandatory orders issued in favour of the City. Costs awarded to the City up to 20 April 2017; thereafter, each party to bear its own costs.

Orders

  • It is declared that the respondent's placement of soil, rubble, and fill within the 1:100 year floodline contravened the Stormwater Management By-law.
  • The City is authorized under sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the By-law to enter the property and undertake necessary remedial works, including removal of fill material.