De Klerk and Others v City of Bombela Local Municipality c/o Municipal Manager and Others (2928/2018) [2020] ZAMPMBHC 42 (16 July 2020)

De Klerk and Others v City of Bombela Local Municipality c/o Municipal Manager and Others (2928/2018) [2020] ZAMPMBHC 42 (16 July 2020)

The court found that the applicants lacked locus standi, as there was no resolution from the trust authorising Mr de Klerk to institute proceedings, and the supporting affidavits were not commissioned. The second applicant was not a trustee, and the trust deed was not provided. The application was further rendered moot by the sale and transfer of the property to the fifth respondent prior to the institution of proceedings, eliminating any live controversy. The applicants failed to exhaust internal remedies as required by PAJA, as the merits of their appeal had not been heard by the Municipal Appeal Authority. The court held that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying exemption...

Citation
[2020] ZAMPMBHC 42
Parties
Applicant: Francois de Klerk NO; Applicant: Jossy du Toit NO; Applicant: Gary Brian Klinkradt NO; Applicant: Francois de Klerk; Respondent: City of Bombela Local Municipality; Respondent: Municipal Planning Tribunal for the City of Bombela Local Municipality; Respondent: Municipal Appeal Authority for the City of Bombela Local Municipality; Respondent: Blazepoint Trading 101 CC; Respondent: Curro Holdings Ltd
Court
Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 July 2020
Case Number
2928/2018
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on an attorney-own-client scale, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Jansen van Rensburg
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Exhaustion of Internal Remedies, Locus Standi, Mootness, Municipal Planning, Rezoning Application
Administrative Law Land and Property Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Exhaustion of Internal Remedies Locus Standi Mootness Municipal Planning Rezoning Application

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francois de Klerk NO

Applicant

Jossy du Toit NO

Applicant

Gary Brian Klinkradt NO

Applicant

Francois de Klerk

Applicant

City of Bombela Local Municipality

Respondent

Municipal Planning Tribunal for the City of Bombela Local Municipality

Respondent

Municipal Appeal Authority for the City of Bombela Local Municipality

Respondent

Blazepoint Trading 101 CC

Respondent

Curro Holdings Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants had locus standi to bring the application on behalf of the trust and affected residents.
  2. 2 Whether the application was moot due to the change of ownership of the property prior to the institution of proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether internal remedies were exhausted as required by the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act before approaching the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants lacked locus standi, as there was no resolution from the trust authorising Mr de Klerk to institute proceedings, and the supporting affidavits were not commissioned. The second applicant was not a trustee, and the trust deed was not provided. The application was further rendered moot by the sale and transfer of the property to the fifth respondent prior to the institution of proceedings, eliminating any live controversy. The applicants failed to exhaust internal remedies as required by PAJA, as the merits of their appeal had not been heard by the Municipal Appeal Authority. The court held that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying exemption...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on an attorney-own-client scale, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the first to third respondents on an attorney-own-client scale, jointly and severally, including the wasted costs of the postponement of 30 June 2020.