Midstream Home Owners Association and Others v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd and Others (57688/2010) [2011] ZAGPPHC 223 (21 April 2011)

Midstream Home Owners Association and Others v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd and Others (57688/2010) [2011] ZAGPPHC 223 (21 April 2011)

The court found that the applicants failed to prove that the line of no access on Brakfontein Road was not lawfully revoked. The procedures followed by the first and second respondents, including approval of the Traffic Impact Study and Site Development Plan, constituted compliance with the relevant town planning scheme. The applicants did not establish locus standi, as they were not objectors and did not have a direct and substantial interest in the administrative decision. No clear right or injury was proved, and the applicants failed to exhaust internal remedies before seeking judicial review. The delay in bringing the application was unreasonable, and the balance of convenience...

Citation
[2011] ZAGPPHC 223
Parties
Applicant: Midstream Home Owners Association; Applicant: Midfield Home Owners Association; Applicant: Midlands Home Owners Association; Applicant: Midstream College (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Retire @ Midstream Home Owners Association; Applicant: Bondev Midrand (Pty) Limited; Applicant: Marthinus Johannes du Toit; Respondent: Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Limited; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Heritage Hill Home Owners Association
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 April 2011
Case Number
57688/2010
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment on Application for Final and Interim Interdict
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel; third respondent to pay costs jointly and severally with applicants.
Judges
Pretorius
Legal Topics
Town Planning Scheme, Revocation of Access Rights, Interdict Requirements, Locus Standi, Procedural Fairness, Delay in Review
Administrative Law Land and Property Civil Procedure Town Planning Scheme Revocation of Access Rights Interdict Requirements Locus Standi Procedural Fairness +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Midstream Home Owners Association

Applicant

Midfield Home Owners Association

Applicant

Midlands Home Owners Association

Applicant

Midstream College (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Retire @ Midstream Home Owners Association

Applicant

Bondev Midrand (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Marthinus Johannes du Toit

Applicant

Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Limited

Respondent

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Heritage Hill Home Owners Association

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment on Application for Final and Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent was lawfully authorised to construct and use a second access point on Brakfontein Road.
  2. 2 Whether the line of no access imposed by Amendment Scheme 945 was lawfully revoked by the second respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have locus standi to challenge the administrative decision granting access.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to prove that the line of no access on Brakfontein Road was not lawfully revoked. The procedures followed by the first and second respondents, including approval of the Traffic Impact Study and Site Development Plan, constituted compliance with the relevant town planning scheme. The applicants did not establish locus standi, as they were not objectors and did not have a direct and substantial interest in the administrative decision. No clear right or injury was proved, and the applicants failed to exhaust internal remedies before seeking judicial review. The delay in bringing the application was unreasonable, and the balance of convenience...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel; third respondent to pay costs jointly and severally with applicants.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, including the cost of two counsel.
  • The third respondent is ordered to pay the costs jointly and severally with the applicants, the one to pay the other to be absolved.