MEC for Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Western Cape Province In re: Minister for Mineral Resources and Swartland Municipality and Others and Maccsand (Pty) Ltd and The City of Cape Town and Others (CCT 102/11, 103/11) [2012] ZACC 10; 2012 (9) BCLR 947 (CC) (29 May 2012)

MEC for Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Western Cape Province In re: Minister for Mineral Resources and Swartland Municipality and Others and Maccsand (Pty) Ltd and The City of Cape Town and Others (CCT 102/11, 103/11) [2012] ZACC 10; 2012 (9) BCLR 947 (CC) (29 May 2012)

The Court found that the costs order in CCT 102/11 was granted in error because the MEC did not oppose the appeal in that matter. Accordingly, the order was varied to exclude reference to the MEC. In CCT 103/11, the MEC's success was limited to the LUPO issue, and his other applications were unsuccessful. The Court held that it was fair for each party to bear its own costs in relation to those applications, and the costs order made in CCT 103/11 was accurate. Therefore, the request for variation succeeded only in respect of CCT 102/11 and was refused for CCT 103/11.

Citation
[2012] ZACC 10
Parties
Applicant: MEC for Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Western Cape Province; Applicant: Minister for Mineral Resources; Respondent: Swartland Municipality; Respondent: Hugo Wiehahn Louw N.O.; Respondent: Cornelia Johanna Elizabeth Louw N.O.; Respondent: Ignatius Viljoen N.O.; Respondent: Izak Bartholomeas van der Vyfer N.O.; Respondent: Elsana Quarry (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Western Cape Province; Applicant: Maccsand (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: City of Cape Town; Respondent: Minister for Water Affairs and Environment; Respondent: Affairs and Development Planning, Western Cape Province; Respondent: Minister for Rural Development and Land Reform; Respondent: Minister for Mineral Resources; Appellant: Chamber of Mines of South Africa; Appellant: Agri South Africa
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 May 2012
Case Number
CCT 102/11, 103/11
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application to Vary Costs Orders Under Rule 42
Outcome
The application to vary the costs order succeeded in respect of case CCT 102/11 and failed in respect of case CCT 103/11. No order as to costs was made in this application.
Judges
Mogoeng, Yacoob, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Maya, Nkabinde, Skweyiya, van der Westhuizen, Zondo
Legal Topics
Variation of Court Orders, Costs Awards, Patent Error or Omission, Rule 42 Uniform Rules, Land Use Planning Ordinance
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Variation of Court Orders Costs Awards Patent Error or Omission Rule 42 Uniform Rules Land Use Planning Ordinance

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MEC for Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Western Cape Province

Applicant

Minister for Mineral Resources

Applicant

Swartland Municipality

Respondent

Hugo Wiehahn Louw N.O.

Respondent

Cornelia Johanna Elizabeth Louw N.O.

Respondent

Ignatius Viljoen N.O.

Respondent

Izak Bartholomeas van der Vyfer N.O.

Respondent

Elsana Quarry (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Western Cape Province

Respondent

Maccsand (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

City of Cape Town

Respondent

Minister for Water Affairs and Environment

Respondent

Affairs and Development Planning, Western Cape Province

Respondent

Minister for Rural Development and Land Reform

Respondent

Minister for Mineral Resources

Respondent

Chamber of Mines of South Africa

Appellant

Agri South Africa

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application to Vary Costs Orders Under Rule 42

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs order in case CCT 102/11 erroneously included the MEC for Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Western Cape Province as a party liable for costs.
  2. 2 Whether the costs order in case CCT 103/11 omitted the MEC as a beneficiary of the costs award due to a patent omission.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for variation under Rule 42 of the Uniform Rules were met.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the costs order in CCT 102/11 was granted in error because the MEC did not oppose the appeal in that matter. Accordingly, the order was varied to exclude reference to the MEC. In CCT 103/11, the MEC's success was limited to the LUPO issue, and his other applications were unsuccessful. The Court held that it was fair for each party to bear its own costs in relation to those applications, and the costs order made in CCT 103/11 was accurate. Therefore, the request for variation succeeded only in respect of CCT 102/11 and was refused for CCT 103/11.

Court Disposition

The application to vary the costs order succeeded in respect of case CCT 102/11 and failed in respect of case CCT 103/11. No order as to costs was made in this application.

Orders

  • The order of costs granted in case CCT 102/11 is amended by deleting the reference to the MEC for Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Western Cape.
  • The request for the variation of the order of costs in case CCT 103/11 is refused.