Rabboni Centre Ministries v Multisand (Pty) Ltd and Others (Leave to Appeal) (67006/2010) [2024] ZAGPPHC 738 (25 July 2024)

Rabboni Centre Ministries v Multisand (Pty) Ltd and Others (Leave to Appeal) (67006/2010) [2024] ZAGPPHC 738 (25 July 2024)

The court held that the creation of a public road over private property by consent order is competent under South African law, as the common law provides for such creation and is not solely governed by statutory provisions relating to local authorities. The applicant's reliance on vetustas was misinterpreted; it was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 738
Parties
Applicant: Rabboni Centre Ministries; Respondent: Multisand (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Middelwater Eiendomme (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Middelwater Landfilling (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Virgilio Gouveia Dos Santos and Maria Isabelle Rodrigues Dos Santos; Respondent: Ntonjana Stephens Mpkwesana; Respondent: Gideon Petrus du Preez; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds, Pretoria; Respondent: Rodney Nkibe Mosuoe and Sannie Ntlhokomeleng Mosuoe; Respondent: Rocca Investments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Premier of the Province of Gauteng N.O.; Respondent: Members of the Executive of the Gauteng Provincial Province Responsible for the Department of Roads and Transport N.O.
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 July 2024
Case Number
67006/2010
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Rescission Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Labuschagne
Legal Topics
Public Road Creation, Consent Order, Rescission Application, Vetustas, Delay in Application
Land and Property Civil Procedure Public Road Creation Consent Order Rescission Application Vetustas Delay in Application

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rabboni Centre Ministries

Applicant

Multisand (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Middelwater Eiendomme (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Middelwater Landfilling (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Virgilio Gouveia Dos Santos and Maria Isabelle Rodrigues Dos Santos

Respondent

Ntonjana Stephens Mpkwesana

Respondent

Gideon Petrus du Preez

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds, Pretoria

Respondent

Rodney Nkibe Mosuoe and Sannie Ntlhokomeleng Mosuoe

Respondent

Rocca Investments (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Premier of the Province of Gauteng N.O.

Respondent

Members of the Executive of the Gauteng Provincial Province Responsible for the Department of Roads and Transport N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Rescission Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the creation of a public road over private property by consent order is competent under South African law.
  2. 2 Whether the reference to vetustas in the previous judgment was correctly interpreted.
  3. 3 Whether the lengthy delay in bringing the rescission application was adequately explained.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the creation of a public road over private property by consent order is competent under South African law, as the common law provides for such creation and is not solely governed by statutory provisions relating to local authorities. The applicant's reliance on vetustas was misinterpreted; it was cited as an example of a common law pathway, not as the sole basis for the order. The applicant had agreed to the consent order, and the reference to 'public road' indicated an intention for public access. The delay in bringing the rescission application was not adequately explained, and the applicant relied on repealed legislation without pleading relevant empowering...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs on Scale C, the first, second and third respondents being represented by senior counsel.