Municipality of Stellenbosch v Shelf-Line 104 (Pty) Ltd (SCA) [2011] ZASCA 190; 2012 (1) SA 599 (SCA); [2012] 1 All SA 441 (SCA) (3 November 2011)

Municipality of Stellenbosch v Shelf-Line 104 (Pty) Ltd (SCA) [2011] ZASCA 190; 2012 (1) SA 599 (SCA); [2012] 1 All SA 441 (SCA) (3 November 2011)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the municipality could not unilaterally amend the conditions of approval for rezoning and subdivision after the developer had accepted them. The relationship between the municipality and the developer is founded on consensus, and the conditions, including the applicable BICL tariff, become binding upon acceptance. Section 42(3) of LUPO expressly requires consultation with the landowner before any amendment of conditions. The council's resolution of 29 May 2007, which increased the BICL tariff, operated as an amendment to the municipality's general tariff structure but did not alter the conditions already accepted by the respondent. The attempt to...

Citation
[2011] ZASCA 190
Parties
Appellant: Municipality of Stellenbosch; Respondent: Shelf-Line 104 (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 November 2011
Case Number
615/10
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape High Court (cape Town), Judgment of Goliath J
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Heher, Snyders, Shongwe, Majiedt, Plasket
Legal Topics
Rezoning and Subdivision, Bulk Infrastructure Contribution Levies, Municipal Powers, Land Use Planning Ordinance, Amendment of Conditions, Developer Consensus
Land and Property Administrative Law Rezoning and Subdivision Bulk Infrastructure Contribution Levies Municipal Powers Land Use Planning Ordinance Amendment of Conditions Developer Consensus

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Municipality of Stellenbosch

Appellant

Shelf-Line 104 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape High Court (cape Town), Judgment of Goliath J

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a municipality may unilaterally amend conditions of approval for rezoning and subdivision after acceptance by the developer.
  2. 2 Whether bulk infrastructure contribution levies (BICLs) constitute a tax or an endowment obligation.
  3. 3 Whether the council's resolution of 29 May 2007 lawfully imposed increased BICLs on developments already approved under previous conditions.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the municipality could not unilaterally amend the conditions of approval for rezoning and subdivision after the developer had accepted them. The relationship between the municipality and the developer is founded on consensus, and the conditions, including the applicable BICL tariff, become binding upon acceptance. Section 42(3) of LUPO expressly requires consultation with the landowner before any amendment of conditions. The council's resolution of 29 May 2007, which increased the BICL tariff, operated as an amendment to the municipality's general tariff structure but did not alter the conditions already accepted by the respondent. The attempt to...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

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