Joubert and Another v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (93179/19) [2022] ZAGPPHC 461 (23 June 2022)

Joubert and Another v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (93179/19) [2022] ZAGPPHC 461 (23 June 2022)

The court found that the decision sought to be reviewed and set aside was not the one identified in the applicants' notice of motion, nor was it the decision for which the record was filed or which the Respondent was called upon to defend. There was no application to amend the notice of motion to include the alternative decision referenced in argument. As a result, the relief sought in prayer 1, and the ancillary prayers 3 and 4, were not properly before the court and were dismissed. The declaratory relief sought in prayer 2 was not supported by the papers and, even if it had been, would not be granted in the abstract without concrete relief. The application was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 461
Parties
Applicant: Pieter Johannes Joubert; Applicant: Anna Maria Joubert; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 June 2022
Case Number
93179/19
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Barnes AJ
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Municipal Planning, Consent Use, Property Zoning, Second Hand Goods Regulation
Administrative Law Land and Property Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Municipal Planning Consent Use Property Zoning Second Hand Goods Regulation

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pieter Johannes Joubert

Applicant

Anna Maria Joubert

Applicant

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision of the Respondent's Appeal Tribunal dismissing the applicants' appeal against refusal of consent use is reviewable under PAJA.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were afforded procedural fairness in the decision-making process.
  3. 3 Whether the legality of trading in second-hand goods falls under the jurisdiction of the South African Police Service or the Municipality.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the decision sought to be reviewed and set aside was not the one identified in the applicants' notice of motion, nor was it the decision for which the record was filed or which the Respondent was called upon to defend. There was no application to amend the notice of motion to include the alternative decision referenced in argument. As a result, the relief sought in prayer 1, and the ancillary prayers 3 and 4, were not properly before the court and were dismissed. The declaratory relief sought in prayer 2 was not supported by the papers and, even if it had been, would not be granted in the abstract without concrete relief. The application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.