Midstream Home Owners Association and Others v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd and Others, Heritage Hill Home Owners Association v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd and Others (424/2011, 435/2011) [2012] ZASCA 65 (21 May 2012)

Midstream Home Owners Association and Others v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd and Others, Heritage Hill Home Owners Association v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd and Others (424/2011, 435/2011) [2012] ZASCA 65 (21 May 2012)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Municipality lawfully granted permission for the disputed access point on Brakfontein Road by approving the site development plan and Traffic Impact Study, which depicted the new access. The physical depiction of the 'line of no access' on the town planning map was not determinative; what mattered was the Municipality's decision to permit access, which could be made expressly or by implication. The application procedure and advertisement requirements under the scheme were for the Municipality's benefit and could be waived. The appellants failed to demonstrate any right or legitimate expectation to be heard, as no advertisement procedure was...

Citation
[2012] ZASCA 65
Parties
Appellant: Midstream Home Owners Association; Appellant: Midfield Home Owners Association; Appellant: Midlands Home Owners Association; Appellant: Midstream College (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Retire @ Midstream Home Owners Association; Appellant: Bondev Midrand (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Marthinus Johannes du Toit; Appellant: Heritage Hill Home Owners Association; Respondent: Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Heritage Hill Home Owners Association; Respondent: Gauteng Provincial Government, Member of the Executive Committee of Agriculture & Rural Development
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 May 2012
Case Number
424/2011, 435/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
Judges
Mthiyane DP, Nugent JA, Ponnan JA, Malan JA, Ndita AJA
Legal Topics
Town Planning Scheme, Revocation of Access Rights, Municipal Permissions, Administrative Action, Interdict, Procedural Fairness
Land and Property Administrative Law Civil Procedure Town Planning Scheme Revocation of Access Rights Municipal Permissions Administrative Action Interdict +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Midstream Home Owners Association

Appellant

Midfield Home Owners Association

Appellant

Midlands Home Owners Association

Appellant

Midstream College (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Retire @ Midstream Home Owners Association

Appellant

Bondev Midrand (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Marthinus Johannes du Toit

Appellant

Heritage Hill Home Owners Association

Appellant

Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Heritage Hill Home Owners Association

Respondent

Gauteng Provincial Government, Member of the Executive Committee of Agriculture & Rural Development

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Municipality lawfully revoked the 'line of no access' under the Tshwane Town Planning Scheme, 2008.
  2. 2 Whether Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd was granted valid permission to construct and use the disputed access point on Brakfontein Road.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants were entitled to a final or interim interdict prohibiting the use of the new access point.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Municipality lawfully granted permission for the disputed access point on Brakfontein Road by approving the site development plan and Traffic Impact Study, which depicted the new access. The physical depiction of the 'line of no access' on the town planning map was not determinative; what mattered was the Municipality's decision to permit access, which could be made expressly or by implication. The application procedure and advertisement requirements under the scheme were for the Municipality's benefit and could be waived. The appellants failed to demonstrate any right or legitimate expectation to be heard, as no advertisement procedure was...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Orders

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