Democratic Alliance v Municipal Demarcation Board and Others (70915/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1090 (6 November 2015)

Democratic Alliance v Municipal Demarcation Board and Others (70915/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1090 (6 November 2015)

The Court found that the applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances or a strong case for interim interdictory relief. The process followed by the Municipal Demarcation Board, including the provision of information in circulars and notices, was deemed sufficient for meaningful public participation. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 1090
Parties
Applicant: Democratic Alliance; Respondent: Municipal Demarcation Board; Respondent: Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council for Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Eastern Cape Province; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council for Cooperative Governance, Traditional Affairs and Human Settlements, Free State Province; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council for Cooperative Governance, Human Settlements, KwaZulu-Natal Province; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council for Cooperative Governance, Human Settlements and Traditional Affairs, Limpopo Province; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council for Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Mpumalanga Province; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council for Cooperative Governance, Human Settlements, Northern Cape Province; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council for Local Government and Human Settlements, North West Province; Respondent: South African Local Government Association; Respondent: Independent Electoral Commission; Respondent: Affected Municipalities listed in Annexure "A"
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 November 2015
Case Number
70915/2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict (part A) Pending Review (part B)
Outcome
Application for interim interdict dismissed; costs awarded against applicant.
Judges
N Kollapen
Legal Topics
Municipal Demarcation, Interim Interdict, Procedural Fairness, Public Participation, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Municipal Demarcation Interim Interdict Procedural Fairness Public Participation Promotion of Administrative Justice Act

Source-derived case record

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Democratic Alliance

Applicant

Municipal Demarcation Board

Respondent

Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs

Respondent

Member of the Executive Council for Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Eastern Cape Province

Respondent

Member of the Executive Council for Cooperative Governance, Traditional Affairs and Human Settlements, Free State Province

Respondent

Member of the Executive Council for Cooperative Governance, Human Settlements, KwaZulu-Natal Province

Respondent

Member of the Executive Council for Cooperative Governance, Human Settlements and Traditional Affairs, Limpopo Province

Respondent

Member of the Executive Council for Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Mpumalanga Province

Respondent

Member of the Executive Council for Cooperative Governance, Human Settlements, Northern Cape Province

Respondent

Member of the Executive Council for Local Government and Human Settlements, North West Province

Respondent

South African Local Government Association

Respondent

Independent Electoral Commission

Respondent

Affected Municipalities listed in Annexure "A"

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict (part A) Pending Review (part B)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Municipal Demarcation Board's process for determining and re-determining municipal boundaries was procedurally fair.
  2. 2 Whether sufficient information was provided to enable meaningful public participation in the demarcation process.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of Section 26(2) of the Municipal Demarcation Act regarding radio communication were met.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances or a strong case for interim interdictory relief. The process followed by the Municipal Demarcation Board, including the provision of information in circulars and notices, was deemed sufficient for meaningful public participation. The shortcomings in the radio adverts and the means of accessing information were not considered fatal, as substantial compliance with Section 26(2) was achieved. The Board was not obliged to provide reports of independent investigations to stakeholders, nor was it required to exhaust provincial assistance measures before demarcation. The determination of the timetable for...

Court Disposition

Application for interim interdict dismissed; costs awarded against applicant.

Orders

  • Part A of the application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application, including the wasted costs of 29 September 2015.