McGregor and Another v City of Johannesburg (A5033/04) [2005] ZAGPHC 99 (27 September 2005)

McGregor and Another v City of Johannesburg (A5033/04) [2005] ZAGPHC 99 (27 September 2005)

The court held that the appellants' sign was lawfully erected pursuant to an approval valid for three years, expiring on 30 June 2002. The transitional exemption under clause 4(3) of the third by-laws applied only until the expiry of this period. After 1 July 2002, the exemption lapsed, and the sign became subject to the full provisions of the third by-laws, including the prohibition on signage on residential property under clause 5(26). Clause 4(3) did not create new or indefinite rights for the appellants; it merely provided a temporary exemption during the transition. The appellants were required to submit a new application, which could not be granted due to the zoning restrictions....

Citation
[2005] ZAGPHC 99
Parties
Appellant: McGregor, Bruce Euvrard; Appellant: Corpcom Outdoor (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: City of Johannesburg
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 September 2005
Case Number
A5033/04
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
M P Tsoka
Legal Topics
Municipal by Laws, Signage Regulation, Zoning, Transitional Provisions
Land and Property Administrative Law Municipal by Laws Signage Regulation Zoning Transitional Provisions

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

McGregor, Bruce Euvrard

Appellant

Corpcom Outdoor (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

City of Johannesburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants' sign, erected on residential property, remained lawful after the expiry of the initial approval period under the third by-laws.
  2. 2 Whether clause 4(3) of the third by-laws created new rights for the appellants beyond the original approval period.
  3. 3 Whether the transitional exemption under clause 4(3) extended the lawful display of the sign beyond 30 June 2002.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellants' sign was lawfully erected pursuant to an approval valid for three years, expiring on 30 June 2002. The transitional exemption under clause 4(3) of the third by-laws applied only until the expiry of this period. After 1 July 2002, the exemption lapsed, and the sign became subject to the full provisions of the third by-laws, including the prohibition on signage on residential property under clause 5(26). Clause 4(3) did not create new or indefinite rights for the appellants; it merely provided a temporary exemption during the transition. The appellants were required to submit a new application, which could not be granted due to the zoning restrictions....

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.