Mabuya v Buffalo City Municipality and Another (EL645/2013, ECD1545/2013) [2017] ZAECELLC 12 (15 May 2017)

Mabuya v Buffalo City Municipality and Another (EL645/2013, ECD1545/2013) [2017] ZAECELLC 12 (15 May 2017)

The court found that while the applicant did not make out a proper case for reviewing or setting aside the allocation decision, the confusion and uncertainty regarding the registration of the property justified the granting of mandamus relief. The first respondent conceded the applicant's entitlement to transfer, and its ongoing failure to effect registration constituted administrative inaction and a breach of constitutional obligations. The application for mandamus was necessary and substantially successful, entitling the applicant to costs, except for costs related to improperly introduced affidavits and annexures.

Citation
[2017] ZAECELLC 12
Parties
Applicant: Nombuyiselo Mabuya; Respondent: Buffalo City Municipality; Respondent: MEC for the Department of Housing, Eastern Cape
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 May 2017
Case Number
EL645/2013, ECD1545/2013
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application for mandamus granted; applicant substantially successful.
Judges
Hartle
Legal Topics
Housing Subsidy Scheme, Mandamus, Allocation of State Property, Administrative Inaction, Constitutional Right to Housing
Administrative Law Land and Property Housing Subsidy Scheme Mandamus Allocation of State Property Administrative Inaction Constitutional Right to Housing

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nombuyiselo Mabuya

Applicant

Buffalo City Municipality

Respondent

MEC for the Department of Housing, Eastern Cape

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision to cancel the allocation of the property to the applicant was lawful.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to registration of transfer of the property into her name.
  3. 3 Whether the failure to register the property constitutes administrative inaction and a breach of constitutional obligations.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the applicant did not make out a proper case for reviewing or setting aside the allocation decision, the confusion and uncertainty regarding the registration of the property justified the granting of mandamus relief. The first respondent conceded the applicant's entitlement to transfer, and its ongoing failure to effect registration constituted administrative inaction and a breach of constitutional obligations. The application for mandamus was necessary and substantially successful, entitling the applicant to costs, except for costs related to improperly introduced affidavits and annexures.

Court Disposition

Application for mandamus granted; applicant substantially successful.

Orders

  • The first respondent is directed to take the necessary steps to ensure that the title deed of the immovable property known as number [5...] N. T., Beacon Bay, is registered in the name of the applicant.
  • The first respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application, provided that the applicant shall not be entitled to recover the costs of filing the supplementary affidavit dated 29 September 2016, or any costs associated with the introduction of annexure 'NM1'.