Moore and Others v Mobile Telephone Networks and Another (D9017/2018) [2020] ZAKZDHC 59 (30 October 2020)

Moore and Others v Mobile Telephone Networks and Another (D9017/2018) [2020] ZAKZDHC 59 (30 October 2020)

The court found that the review application was instituted more than a year after the applicants became aware of the administrative action, as evidenced by published articles in 2017. No application was made to extend the period, rendering the review hopelessly out of time under section 7(1) of PAJA. On the merits, the municipality did not absolve MTN from compliance with town planning regulations, and the agreement in question required special consent, which would involve public participation. The applicants' complaint was therefore unfounded, and the application was ill-conceived and bound to fail. Costs were awarded against the applicants as the matter was not one where the...

Citation
[2020] ZAKZDHC 59
Parties
Applicant: M Moore and Eight Others; Respondent: Mobile Telephone Networks (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: eThekwini Municipality
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 October 2020
Case Number
D9017/2018
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Ploos van Amstel
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Judicial Review Delay, Public Participation, Special Consent Town Planning
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Judicial Review Delay Public Participation Special Consent Town Planning

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

M Moore and Eight Others

Applicant

Mobile Telephone Networks (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

eThekwini Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the review application was instituted within the prescribed period of 180 days under PAJA.
  2. 2 Whether the alleged administrative decision by the municipality is reviewable under PAJA.
  3. 3 Whether the municipality absolved MTN from compliance with town planning regulations.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the review application was instituted more than a year after the applicants became aware of the administrative action, as evidenced by published articles in 2017. No application was made to extend the period, rendering the review hopelessly out of time under section 7(1) of PAJA. On the merits, the municipality did not absolve MTN from compliance with town planning regulations, and the agreement in question required special consent, which would involve public participation. The applicants' complaint was therefore unfounded, and the application was ill-conceived and bound to fail. Costs were awarded against the applicants as the matter was not one where the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.