Rosebank Mall (Pty) Ltd v Johannesburg City Council (659/92) [1994] ZASCA 85 (30 May 1994)

Rosebank Mall (Pty) Ltd v Johannesburg City Council (659/92) [1994] ZASCA 85 (30 May 1994)

The court held that the obligation to levy and collect the development contribution under section 51 of the 1965 Ordinance was a matter 'pending before' the respondent at the time the 1986 Ordinance commenced. The ordinary meaning of 'pending' applies, covering any process begun but not completed. The respondent's statutory duty to determine and collect the contribution persisted, and the repeal did not extinguish this obligation. The subsequent proviso to section 141(2) merely clarified the legislature's original intention. Accordingly, the appellant remained liable for the development contribution, and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[1994] ZASCA 85
Parties
Appellant: Rosebank Mall (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Johannesburg City Council
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 May 1994
Case Number
659/92
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Witwatersrand Local Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Hoexter, Botha, EM Grosskopf, Kumleben, Van Den Heever
Legal Topics
Town Planning Ordinance, Development Contribution, Statutory Interpretation, Pending Matter, Repeal and Savings, Municipal Taxation
Land and Property Administrative Law Town Planning Ordinance Development Contribution Statutory Interpretation Pending Matter Repeal and Savings Municipal Taxation

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rosebank Mall (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Johannesburg City Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Witwatersrand Local Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether liability for a development contribution under the repealed 1965 Ordinance remained pending before the respondent on 10 June 1987.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was liable to pay the development contribution after the repeal of the 1965 Ordinance.
  3. 3 Proper interpretation of section 141(2) of the 1986 Ordinance regarding pending matters.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the obligation to levy and collect the development contribution under section 51 of the 1965 Ordinance was a matter 'pending before' the respondent at the time the 1986 Ordinance commenced. The ordinary meaning of 'pending' applies, covering any process begun but not completed. The respondent's statutory duty to determine and collect the contribution persisted, and the repeal did not extinguish this obligation. The subsequent proviso to section 141(2) merely clarified the legislature's original intention. Accordingly, the appellant remained liable for the development contribution, and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel.