Hendricks and Another v City of Cape Town (9376/2010) [2011] ZAWCHC 300; 2011 (6) SA 88 (WCC) (24 June 2011)

Hendricks and Another v City of Cape Town (9376/2010) [2011] ZAWCHC 300; 2011 (6) SA 88 (WCC) (24 June 2011)

The court found that the notices issued by the City of Cape Town constituted administrative action under PAJA, as they made a demand or requirement with legal consequences for non-compliance. The respondent's decision materially and adversely affected the applicants' rights to trade and their legitimate expectations, given their long-standing trading history at the sites in question. The respondent failed to afford the applicants procedural fairness, including adequate notice and an opportunity to make representations, as required by section 3(1) of PAJA and the audi alteram partem rule. The court rejected the respondent's argument that the notices were merely preliminary steps without...

Citation
[2011] ZAWCHC 300
Parties
Applicant: Faizel Hendricks; Applicant: Mogamat Smith; Respondent: City of Cape Town
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 June 2011
Case Number
9376/2010
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review Application After Abandonment of Interdict Proceedings
Outcome
Application for review granted; respondent's decision and notices set aside; applicants entitled to remain in existing structures pending procedural fairness; costs awarded to applicants.
Judges
Mantame
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Procedural Fairness, Legitimate Expectation, Municipal by Laws, Right to Trade
Administrative Law Land and Property Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Procedural Fairness Legitimate Expectation Municipal by Laws Right to Trade

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Faizel Hendricks

Applicant

Mogamat Smith

Applicant

City of Cape Town

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review Application After Abandonment of Interdict Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notices issued by the City of Cape Town constitute administrative action subject to review under PAJA.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were afforded procedural fairness prior to the decision affecting their trading rights.
  3. 3 Whether the City of Cape Town's decision materially and adversely affected the applicants' rights or legitimate expectations.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the notices issued by the City of Cape Town constituted administrative action under PAJA, as they made a demand or requirement with legal consequences for non-compliance. The respondent's decision materially and adversely affected the applicants' rights to trade and their legitimate expectations, given their long-standing trading history at the sites in question. The respondent failed to afford the applicants procedural fairness, including adequate notice and an opportunity to make representations, as required by section 3(1) of PAJA and the audi alteram partem rule. The court rejected the respondent's argument that the notices were merely preliminary steps without...

Court Disposition

Application for review granted; respondent's decision and notices set aside; applicants entitled to remain in existing structures pending procedural fairness; costs awarded to applicants.

Orders

  • The respondent's decision taken on or about April 2010 to compel the applicants to remove and rebuild their business structures daily on their trading sites is reviewed and set aside.
  • The respondent's notices served on the applicants on 23 April 2010 to remove their business structures are reviewed and set aside.