Patmar Explorations (Pty) Ltd and Others v Limpopo Development Tribunal and Others (1250/2016) [2018] ZASCA 19; 2018 (4) SA 107 (SCA) (16 March 2018)

Patmar Explorations (Pty) Ltd and Others v Limpopo Development Tribunal and Others (1250/2016) [2018] ZASCA 19; 2018 (4) SA 107 (SCA) (16 March 2018)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the effect of the Constitutional Court’s suspension of invalidity expiring was to deprive the Limpopo Development Tribunal of the power to determine applications lodged but not disposed of prior to 17 June 2012. The Tribunal’s decision to approve the development application after that date was invalid. The High Court erred by disregarding a previous judgment of its own division on the same issue, contrary to the doctrine of stare decisis, which requires a judge to follow such a decision unless it is clearly wrong. The respondents failed to demonstrate that the Shelton judgment or the earlier High Court decision were clearly incorrect. The appeal was...

Citation
[2018] ZASCA 19
Parties
Appellant: Patmar Explorations (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Patmar Energy (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Patmar Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Huilbos Beleggings (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Avant Verspreiders (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Limpopo Development Tribunal; Respondent: MEC for Co-operative Government, Human Settlement and Traditional Affairs, Limpopo; Respondent: Premier, Limpopo Province; Respondent: Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform; Respondent: Gabriel Stephanus Labuschagne N.O.; Respondent: Catharina Lefina Labuschagne N.O.; Respondent: Abel Hermanus Gerhardus Nell N.O.; Respondent: Loskop Motors (Pty) Ltd t/a TM Auto (Caltex); Respondent: J H Jardin t/a Loskop Vallei Filling Station (BP); Respondent: JKG Petrol Sales CC; Respondent: E T Papadopoulos; Respondent: A Papadopoulos
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 March 2018
Case Number
1250/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal upheld; High Court order set aside and replaced; costs awarded against first to third respondents jointly and severally.
Judges
Navsa, Wallis, Mathopo, Davis, Hughes
Legal Topics
Development Facilitation Act, Stare Decisis, Judicial Review, Constitutional Invalidity
Administrative Law Land and Property Development Facilitation Act Stare Decisis Judicial Review Constitutional Invalidity

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patmar Explorations (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Patmar Energy (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Patmar Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Huilbos Beleggings (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Avant Verspreiders (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Limpopo Development Tribunal

Respondent

MEC for Co-operative Government, Human Settlement and Traditional Affairs, Limpopo

Respondent

Premier, Limpopo Province

Respondent

Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform

Respondent

Gabriel Stephanus Labuschagne N.O.

Respondent

Catharina Lefina Labuschagne N.O.

Respondent

Abel Hermanus Gerhardus Nell N.O.

Respondent

Loskop Motors (Pty) Ltd t/a TM Auto (Caltex)

Respondent

J H Jardin t/a Loskop Vallei Filling Station (BP)

Respondent

JKG Petrol Sales CC

Respondent

E T Papadopoulos

Respondent

A Papadopoulos

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Limpopo Development Tribunal had the power to approve land development applications after the expiry of the suspension of invalidity of the relevant provisions of the Development Facilitation Act.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court was bound by a previous judgment of its own division on the same legal point.
  3. 3 Whether the doctrine of stare decisis required the High Court to follow the earlier decision unless it was clearly wrong.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the effect of the Constitutional Court’s suspension of invalidity expiring was to deprive the Limpopo Development Tribunal of the power to determine applications lodged but not disposed of prior to 17 June 2012. The Tribunal’s decision to approve the development application after that date was invalid. The High Court erred by disregarding a previous judgment of its own division on the same issue, contrary to the doctrine of stare decisis, which requires a judge to follow such a decision unless it is clearly wrong. The respondents failed to demonstrate that the Shelton judgment or the earlier High Court decision were clearly incorrect. The appeal was...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; High Court order set aside and replaced; costs awarded against first to third respondents jointly and severally.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, such costs to be paid by the First to Third Respondents jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.
  • The order of the High Court is set aside and replaced by the following: The decision of the First Respondent on 8 November 2012 approving the application by the Gawie Labuschagne Trust for development rights in respect of erven 7[...]6 and 7[...]7 Groblersdal Extension 11 is set aside as null and void.