McGregor v City of Johannesburg (163/06) [2007] ZASCA 31; [2007] SCA 31 (RSA); 2008 (1) SA 308 (SCA) (28 March 2007)

McGregor v City of Johannesburg (163/06) [2007] ZASCA 31; [2007] SCA 31 (RSA); 2008 (1) SA 308 (SCA) (28 March 2007)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that clause 4(3) of the 2001 by-laws does not extend the scope of the original approval for the advertising sign beyond its fixed period. The exemption preserves the validity of approvals granted under repealed by-laws only for the duration and terms originally granted. Once the approval period expired, the continued display of the sign became unlawful, especially as the 2001 by-laws specifically prohibit advertising signage on residential property. The court rejected the appellants' interpretation as leading to an absurd result, namely, perpetual exemption from the by-laws for signage expressly prohibited. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2007] ZASCA 31
Parties
Appellant: Bruce E McGregor; Appellant: Corpcom Outdoor (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: City of Johannesburg
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 March 2007
Case Number
163/06
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Court; Special Leave Granted
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Howie, Cloete, Lewis, Snyders, Theron
Legal Topics
Municipal by Laws, Interpretation of Exemptions, Advertising Signage Regulation, Preservation of Existing Rights
Administrative Law Land and Property Municipal by Laws Interpretation of Exemptions Advertising Signage Regulation Preservation of Existing Rights

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bruce E McGregor

Appellant

Corpcom Outdoor (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

City of Johannesburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Court; Special Leave Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exemption in clause 4(3) of the 2001 by-laws extends the scope of the original approval for the advertising sign beyond its fixed period.
  2. 2 Whether the promulgation of new by-laws preserves or expands the right to display the sign on residential property.
  3. 3 Whether the continued display of the sign after expiry of the original approval is lawful under the new by-laws.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that clause 4(3) of the 2001 by-laws does not extend the scope of the original approval for the advertising sign beyond its fixed period. The exemption preserves the validity of approvals granted under repealed by-laws only for the duration and terms originally granted. Once the approval period expired, the continued display of the sign became unlawful, especially as the 2001 by-laws specifically prohibit advertising signage on residential property. The court rejected the appellants' interpretation as leading to an absurd result, namely, perpetual exemption from the by-laws for signage expressly prohibited. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

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