Knop v Johannesburg City Council (669/92) [1994] ZASCA 159; 1995 (2) SA 1 (AD); [1995] 1 All SA 673 (A) (18 November 1994)

Knop v Johannesburg City Council (669/92) [1994] ZASCA 159; 1995 (2) SA 1 (AD); [1995] 1 All SA 673 (A) (18 November 1994)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the distinction between quasi-judicial and purely administrative functions is not determinative of liability for negligence in the exercise of statutory powers. The central question is whether the local authority owed a legal duty to the applicant to prevent pure economic loss....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1994] ZASCA 159
Parties
Appellant: P J Knop; Respondent: City Council of Johannesburg
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 November 1994
Case Number
669/92
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Exception Upheld in Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Botha, Hefer, Vivier, Nienaber, Howie
Legal Topics
Pure Economic Loss, Municipal Liability, Negligent Misstatement, Statutory Duties, Wrongfulness, Town Planning Scheme
Delict Land and Property Civil Procedure Pure Economic Loss Municipal Liability Negligent Misstatement Statutory Duties Wrongfulness +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P J Knop

Appellant

City Council of Johannesburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Exception Upheld in Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a local authority owes a legal duty to an applicant to exercise care in approving a subdivision application so as to avoid causing pure economic loss.
  2. 2 Whether the negligent approval of a subdivision application in conflict with the town planning scheme gives rise to delictual liability for damages.
  3. 3 Whether a negligent misstatement by the local authority regarding compliance with the scheme is actionable in delict.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the distinction between quasi-judicial and purely administrative functions is not determinative of liability for negligence in the exercise of statutory powers. The central question is whether the local authority owed a legal duty to the applicant to prevent pure economic loss. The legislative scheme, including the Town-planning and Townships Ordinance and its regulations, provides a statutory appeal procedure for aggrieved applicants, which is intended to be the remedy for adverse decisions. The statutory duties imposed on the Council are aimed at promoting public order and the general welfare, not at protecting individual applicants against economic...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.