NT55 Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another v MEC Dept of Agriculture and Rural Development of the Gauteng Provincial Government and Others (13473/2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 399 (16 April 2024)

NT55 Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another v MEC Dept of Agriculture and Rural Development of the Gauteng Provincial Government and Others (13473/2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 399 (16 April 2024)

The court held that the applicants failed to institute the review application within a reasonable time as required by section 7(1) of PAJA. Their explanation for the delay was neither full nor satisfactory, as they simply pleaded ignorance of the decision despite their business interests and the extensive public participation process. The applicants also failed to exhaust internal remedies by not appealing to the MEC within the prescribed period and did not obtain an exemption from this requirement. The amendment to the environmental authorisation did not materially alter rights or duties and was merely a correction of errors. The court found no exceptional circumstances to justify...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 399
Parties
Applicant: NT55 Investments (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Francois Nortje; Respondent: MEC: Dept of Agriculture and Rural Development of the Gauteng Provincial Government; Respondent: MEC: Dept of Roads and Transport of the Gauteng Provincial Government; Respondent: Minister of Minerals Resources and Energy; Respondent: National Energy Regulator; Respondent: Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Lesedi Local Municipality; Respondent: Transnet SOC Limited; Respondent: Head of Dept of Agriculture and Rural Development of Gauteng Provincial Government
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 April 2024
Case Number
13473/2020
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Consolidated Review Applications
Outcome
Both review applications are dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where employed.
Judges
Vally
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Delay in Review, Exhaustion of Internal Remedies, Environmental Authorisation, Public Participation, Judicial Review Time Limits
Administrative Law Environmental Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Delay in Review Exhaustion of Internal Remedies Environmental Authorisation Public Participation +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 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NT55 Investments (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Francois Nortje

Applicant

MEC: Dept of Agriculture and Rural Development of the Gauteng Provincial Government

Respondent

MEC: Dept of Roads and Transport of the Gauteng Provincial Government

Respondent

Minister of Minerals Resources and Energy

Respondent

National Energy Regulator

Respondent

Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Lesedi Local Municipality

Respondent

Transnet SOC Limited

Respondent

Head of Dept of Agriculture and Rural Development of Gauteng Provincial Government

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Consolidated Review Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants instituted the review application within a reasonable time as required by section 7(1) of PAJA.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants provided a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in instituting the review.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants exhausted all internal remedies before approaching the court, as required by section 7(2)(a) of PAJA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicants failed to institute the review application within a reasonable time as required by section 7(1) of PAJA. Their explanation for the delay was neither full nor satisfactory, as they simply pleaded ignorance of the decision despite their business interests and the extensive public participation process. The applicants also failed to exhaust internal remedies by not appealing to the MEC within the prescribed period and did not obtain an exemption from this requirement. The amendment to the environmental authorisation did not materially alter rights or duties and was merely a correction of errors. The court found no exceptional circumstances to justify...

Court Disposition

Both review applications are dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where employed.

Orders

  • The application in Case No: 13473/2020 is dismissed.
  • The application in Case No: 8517/2022 is dismissed.