Heine v Mbombela Local Municipality (3246/2019) [2020] ZAMPMBHC 27 (23 September 2020)

Heine v Mbombela Local Municipality (3246/2019) [2020] ZAMPMBHC 27 (23 September 2020)

The court found that the respondent, in withdrawing the approval for the security access control measure, failed to comply with the audi alteram partem rule and the requirements of procedural fairness under Section 33 of the Constitution and Section 3 of PAJA. The applicant and affected residents were not given adequate notice or a reasonable opportunity to make representations prior to the withdrawal of approval. The respondent's subsequent meeting with the applicant occurred after the decision had already been finalized, rendering any opportunity to influence the outcome meaningless. The procedure adopted by the respondent was fundamentally flawed and the administrative action was...

Citation
[2020] ZAMPMBHC 27
Parties
Applicant: Lizane Heine; Respondent: Mbombela Local Municipality
Court
Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 September 2020
Case Number
3246/2019
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review granted; respondent's withdrawal of approval set aside; original approval declared valid; respondent ordered to reinstall security structures; counterclaim dismissed.
Judges
B A Mashile
Legal Topics
Audi Alteram Partem, Road Closure for Security, Delegated Authority, Procedural Fairness, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Audi Alteram Partem Road Closure for Security Delegated Authority Procedural Fairness Promotion of Administrative Justice Act

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lizane Heine

Applicant

Mbombela Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's withdrawal of approval for the security access control measure was procedurally fair.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant and residents were afforded an opportunity to present their case prior to the withdrawal of approval.
  3. 3 Whether the delegated authority was exercised lawfully in approving the application for road closure for security reasons.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent, in withdrawing the approval for the security access control measure, failed to comply with the audi alteram partem rule and the requirements of procedural fairness under Section 33 of the Constitution and Section 3 of PAJA. The applicant and affected residents were not given adequate notice or a reasonable opportunity to make representations prior to the withdrawal of approval. The respondent's subsequent meeting with the applicant occurred after the decision had already been finalized, rendering any opportunity to influence the outcome meaningless. The procedure adopted by the respondent was fundamentally flawed and the administrative action was...

Court Disposition

Application for review granted; respondent's withdrawal of approval set aside; original approval declared valid; respondent ordered to reinstall security structures; counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • The respondent's decision to withdraw approval for the security access control measure dated 12 July 2019 and confirmed on 25 July 2019 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The respondent's approval of the application for security access control measure dated 27 May 2019 is declared valid and legally binding on all parties concerned.