Rietvlei Ontwikkelings (Edms) Bpk. en 'n Ander v Munisipaliteit van Milnerton (101/85/av) [1986] ZASCA 123 (30 September 1986)

Rietvlei Ontwikkelings (Edms) Bpk. en 'n Ander v Munisipaliteit van Milnerton (101/85/av) [1986] ZASCA 123 (30 September 1986)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Director of Valuations did not properly exercise his discretion under section 63(1) of the Valuations Ordinance. The error in the property description did not invalidate the original valuation, as all parties were aware of the properties involved and the description was sufficient for identification. The alleged inequitable treatment was not substantiated, as the stormwater drainage problems were known and considered during the original valuation process. The Director's decision to order a new interim valuation was unreasonable and not justified by the facts. The municipality had potential prejudice, as the Director's action could have disrupted a...

Citation
[1986] ZASCA 123
Parties
Appellant: Rietvlei Ontwikkelings (Edms) Bpk. en Sewe Ander; Respondent: Munisipaliteit van Milnerton
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 September 1986
Case Number
101/85/av
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From a Decision of the Provincial Division, Review of Administrative Action
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Joubert, Trengove, Grosskopf, Boshoff, Nestadt
Legal Topics
Municipal Valuation, Review of Administrative Action, Discretion of Administrative Official, Error in Property Description
Administrative Law Land and Property Municipal Valuation Review of Administrative Action Discretion of Administrative Official Error in Property Description

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rietvlei Ontwikkelings (Edms) Bpk. en Sewe Ander

Appellant

Munisipaliteit van Milnerton

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From a Decision of the Provincial Division, Review of Administrative Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Director of Valuations properly exercised his discretion under section 63(1) of the Valuations Ordinance No. 26 of 1944.
  2. 2 Whether an error in the property description justified a new interim valuation.
  3. 3 Whether the valuation led to inequitable treatment of owners within the meaning of section 63(1).

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Director of Valuations did not properly exercise his discretion under section 63(1) of the Valuations Ordinance. The error in the property description did not invalidate the original valuation, as all parties were aware of the properties involved and the description was sufficient for identification. The alleged inequitable treatment was not substantiated, as the stormwater drainage problems were known and considered during the original valuation process. The Director's decision to order a new interim valuation was unreasonable and not justified by the facts. The municipality had potential prejudice, as the Director's action could have disrupted a...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

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