Malebye Business Enterprise CC and Another v Bela-Bela Business Enterprise CC and Others (4134/2018) [2020] ZALMPPHC 36 (18 June 2020)

Malebye Business Enterprise CC and Another v Bela-Bela Business Enterprise CC and Others (4134/2018) [2020] ZALMPPHC 36 (18 June 2020)

The court found that the applicants had sufficiently identified the decision to be reviewed in their amended notice of motion and supplementary affidavit. The respondents' complaints regarding the identification of the decision, the application for extension of time under PAJA, and the filing of heads of argument were either matters of substance to be argued on the merits or did not constitute procedural irregularities under Rule 30. The respondents failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the alleged irregularities. Consequently, the respondents' application under Rule 30 was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2020] ZALMPPHC 36
Parties
Applicant: Malebye Business Enterprise CC; Applicant: Day Break Proprty 104 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Bela-Bela Local Municipality; Respondent: Minister of Energy; Respondent: Controller of Petroleum Products, Limpopo Province; Respondent: MEC for Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs, Limpopo Province; Respondent: NTK Limpopo Agric Limited; Respondent: VKB Fuels (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Total Petroleum (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The First Building Control Officer of the Bela Bela Local Municipality; Respondent: The Second Building Control Officer of the BelaBela Local Municipality
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 June 2020
Case Number
4134/2018
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Interlocutory Application on Irregular Step Notice Under Rule 30
Outcome
Respondents' Rule 30 application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Kganyago
Legal Topics
Rule 30 Irregular Step, Review of Administrative Action, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Building Regulations, Prejudice Requirement
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Rule 30 Irregular Step Review of Administrative Action Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Building Regulations Prejudice Requirement

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

Malebye Business Enterprise CC

Applicant

Day Break Proprty 104 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Bela-Bela Local Municipality

Respondent

Minister of Energy

Respondent

Controller of Petroleum Products, Limpopo Province

Respondent

MEC for Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs, Limpopo Province

Respondent

NTK Limpopo Agric Limited

Respondent

VKB Fuels (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Total Petroleum (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

The First Building Control Officer of the Bela Bela Local Municipality

Respondent

The Second Building Control Officer of the BelaBela Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Interlocutory Application on Irregular Step Notice Under Rule 30

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' notice of motion and supplementary affidavit were irregular steps under Rule 30.
  2. 2 Whether the decision sought to be reviewed was adequately identified.
  3. 3 Whether the application for extension of time under PAJA was properly pleaded.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had sufficiently identified the decision to be reviewed in their amended notice of motion and supplementary affidavit. The respondents' complaints regarding the identification of the decision, the application for extension of time under PAJA, and the filing of heads of argument were either matters of substance to be argued on the merits or did not constitute procedural irregularities under Rule 30. The respondents failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the alleged irregularities. Consequently, the respondents' application under Rule 30 was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Respondents' Rule 30 application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The respondents' application is dismissed with costs on party and party scale.