Hume Housing v Hibiscus Coast Municipality (AR 552/18) [2019] ZAKZDHC 14 (30 August 2019)

Hume Housing v Hibiscus Coast Municipality (AR 552/18) [2019] ZAKZDHC 14 (30 August 2019)

The court held that the appellant was not entitled to compensation for the illegal structures erected on the land, as the intention of the parties throughout was for the sale and acquisition of unimproved land only. The reference to the Expropriation Act in the prior order was a mechanism for determining compensation, and Section 12(5)(c) excluded compensation for unlawful improvements. The court found no misdirection in the reasoning of the court a quo. Regarding Value Added Tax, the court confirmed that the transaction constituted a supply in terms of the Value Added Tax Act, and the respondent was liable for VAT on the purchase price. The costs order was upheld, as the discretion...

Citation
[2019] ZAKZDHC 14
Parties
Appellant: Hume Housing; Respondent: Hibiscus Coast Municipality
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 August 2019
Case Number
AR 552/18
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Van Zÿl J
Outcome
The appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed. The judgment of the court a quo is varied as specified.
Judges
Kruger, Balton, Masipa
Legal Topics
Expropriation Act Compensation, Value Added Tax, Costs Award, Illegal Occupation, Solatium
Land and Property Civil Procedure Expropriation Act Compensation Value Added Tax Costs Award Illegal Occupation Solatium

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hume Housing

Appellant

Hibiscus Coast Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Van Zÿl J

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the appellant entitled to compensation for illegal structures built on the land.
  2. 2 Is the respondent liable for payment of Value Added Tax on the acquisition of the land.
  3. 3 Is the respondent liable for the costs as ordered by the court a quo.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant was not entitled to compensation for the illegal structures erected on the land, as the intention of the parties throughout was for the sale and acquisition of unimproved land only. The reference to the Expropriation Act in the prior order was a mechanism for determining compensation, and Section 12(5)(c) excluded compensation for unlawful improvements. The court found no misdirection in the reasoning of the court a quo. Regarding Value Added Tax, the court confirmed that the transaction constituted a supply in terms of the Value Added Tax Act, and the respondent was liable for VAT on the purchase price. The costs order was upheld, as the discretion...

Court Disposition

The appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed. The judgment of the court a quo is varied as specified.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The cross-appeal is dismissed.