Provincial Heritage Authority, Eastern Cape v Mellon Developments (CA 254/2019; 515/2018) [2021] ZAECGHC 100 (18 November 2021)

Provincial Heritage Authority, Eastern Cape v Mellon Developments (CA 254/2019; 515/2018) [2021] ZAECGHC 100 (18 November 2021)

The appeal was rendered moot because the respondent sold and transferred the property before the appeal was heard, making any order regarding the demolition permit ineffective. The Heritage Act confers a personal right to the permit applicant, which cannot be transferred to a new owner. The respondent, as a reasonable litigant, should have informed the appellant of the sale once the suspensive conditions were fulfilled, thereby avoiding unnecessary costs. The court found that the costs of the appeal were wasted and should be borne by the respondent, while the costs order of the court a quo should remain undisturbed as the appellant would not have succeeded on the merits. The court applied...

Citation
[2021] ZAECGHC 100
Parties
Appellant: Provincial Heritage Authority, Eastern Cape; Respondent: Mellon Developments (Pty) Ltd
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 November 2021
Case Number
CA 254/2019; 515/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Review Judgment; Full Bench Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as moot; respondent ordered to pay wasted costs of appeal; costs order of court a quo undisturbed.
Judges
Hartle, Schoeman, Rusi
Legal Topics
National Heritage Resources Act, Judicial Review, Mootness, Permit Application, Costs on Appeal
Administrative Law Land and Property National Heritage Resources Act Judicial Review Mootness Permit Application Costs on Appeal

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Provincial Heritage Authority, Eastern Cape

Appellant

Mellon Developments (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Review Judgment; Full Bench Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal has become moot due to the sale and transfer of the property subject to the demolition permit application.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant is entitled to costs of appeal given the respondent's failure to timely disclose the sale of the property.
  3. 3 Whether the order of costs in the court a quo should be disturbed.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was rendered moot because the respondent sold and transferred the property before the appeal was heard, making any order regarding the demolition permit ineffective. The Heritage Act confers a personal right to the permit applicant, which cannot be transferred to a new owner. The respondent, as a reasonable litigant, should have informed the appellant of the sale once the suspensive conditions were fulfilled, thereby avoiding unnecessary costs. The court found that the costs of the appeal were wasted and should be borne by the respondent, while the costs order of the court a quo should remain undisturbed as the appellant would not have succeeded on the merits. The court applied...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed as moot; respondent ordered to pay wasted costs of appeal; costs order of court a quo undisturbed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal, including the costs of the application for leave to appeal and the costs incurred in respect of the preparation and lodging of the written and oral representations made pursuant to section 16(2)(a)-(d) of the Superior Courts Act, No 10 of 2013.