Smith en Andere v Kleinfontein Boerebelange Kooperatief Bpk en Andere (28685/2010) [2016] ZAGPPHC 628 (22 April 2016)
The court found that the applicants failed to establish a clear right to the relief sought in respect of the final interdicts, as the first respondent had already initiated and was pursuing the necessary statutory processes for township establishment and environmental authorisation. Granting the orders would require the first respondent to duplicate efforts and incur unnecessary costs, given that applications were already pending and substantial funds had been spent. Regarding the interim interdict, the court held that the applicants did not demonstrate a prima facie right, as the first respondent had undertaken not to proceed with further development or sales pending statutory approvals,...
- Citation
- [2016] ZAGPPHC 628
- Parties
- Applicant: Albertus Barend Smith; Applicant: Nicolaas Daniel Pieterse; Applicant: Pieter Cornelius Geyer; Applicant: Siegfried Enslin; Applicant: Quintus Jordaan; Applicant: Willem Hendrik Frederik du Plooy; Applicant: Hermina Elizabeth Maria Susanna Reichel; Applicant: Jan Willem Frederick Botha; Applicant: Theodorus Cornelius Johannes Erasmus; Respondent: Kleinfontein Boerebelange Koöperatief Bpk; Respondent: Die Registrateur van Koöperasies; Respondent: Die Minister van die Nasionale Departement van Omgewingsake; Respondent: Die Minister van Waterwese; Respondent: Die Minister van Publieke Dienste en Administrasie; Respondent: Die Minister van Nasionale Departement van Energie; Respondent: Die Minister van Landelike Ontwikkeling en Grondhervorming; Respondent: Die Minister van Minerale Bronne; Respondent: Die Minister van Landbou; Respondent: Die Lid van die Uitvoerende Raad van die Departement van Plaaslike Owerheid en Behuising, Gauteng; Respondent: Die Hoof van die Uitvoerende Raad van die Departement van Landbou en Landelike Ontwikkeling, Gauteng; Respondent: Departement van Infrastruktuur Ontwikkeling, Gauteng; Respondent: Die Registrateur van Aktes; Respondent: Die Registrateur van Maatskappye; Respondent: Kleinfontein Spaar en Krediet Koöperatief Beperk; Respondent: ABSA Bank Beperk; Respondent: Kleinfontein Boubestuur BK; Respondent: Irene Groenewald h/a IG Eiendomme; Respondent: Kungwini Plaaslike Munisipaliteit
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 22 April 2016
- Case Number
- 28685/2010
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Final Determination of Application for Final and Interim Interdicts
- Outcome
- Application dismissed; no order as to costs.
- Judges
- DS Fourie
- Legal Topics
- Town Planning, Interdicts, Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, Environmental Authorisation, Locus Standi
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Albertus Barend Smith
Applicant
Nicolaas Daniel Pieterse
Applicant
Pieter Cornelius Geyer
Applicant
Siegfried Enslin
Applicant
Quintus Jordaan
Applicant
Willem Hendrik Frederik du Plooy
Applicant
Hermina Elizabeth Maria Susanna Reichel
Applicant
Jan Willem Frederick Botha
Applicant
Theodorus Cornelius Johannes Erasmus
Applicant
Kleinfontein Boerebelange Koöperatief Bpk
Respondent
Die Registrateur van Koöperasies
Respondent
Die Minister van die Nasionale Departement van Omgewingsake
Respondent
Die Minister van Waterwese
Respondent
Die Minister van Publieke Dienste en Administrasie
Respondent
Die Minister van Nasionale Departement van Energie
Respondent
Die Minister van Landelike Ontwikkeling en Grondhervorming
Respondent
Die Minister van Minerale Bronne
Respondent
Die Minister van Landbou
Respondent
Die Lid van die Uitvoerende Raad van die Departement van Plaaslike Owerheid en Behuising, Gauteng
Respondent
Die Hoof van die Uitvoerende Raad van die Departement van Landbou en Landelike Ontwikkeling, Gauteng
Respondent
Departement van Infrastruktuur Ontwikkeling, Gauteng
Respondent
Die Registrateur van Aktes
Respondent
Die Registrateur van Maatskappye
Respondent
Kleinfontein Spaar en Krediet Koöperatief Beperk
Respondent
ABSA Bank Beperk
Respondent
Kleinfontein Boubestuur BK
Respondent
Irene Groenewald h/a IG Eiendomme
Respondent
Kungwini Plaaslike Munisipaliteit
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination of Application for Final and Interim Interdicts
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have locus standi to seek the relief claimed.
- 2 Whether the requirements for a final interdict have been met.
- 3 Whether the requirements for an interim interdict have been met.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to establish a clear right to the relief sought in respect of the final interdicts, as the first respondent had already initiated and was pursuing the necessary statutory processes for township establishment and environmental authorisation. Granting the orders would require the first respondent to duplicate efforts and incur unnecessary costs, given that applications were already pending and substantial funds had been spent. Regarding the interim interdict, the court held that the applicants did not demonstrate a prima facie right, as the first respondent had undertaken not to proceed with further development or sales pending statutory approvals,...
Court Disposition
Application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Orders
- The applicants' application is dismissed.
- No order as to costs is made.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment