Stadsraad van Vanderbijlpark v Uys (546/87) [1989] ZASCA 8; [1989] 2 All SA 273 (A) (14 March 1989)

Stadsraad van Vanderbijlpark v Uys (546/87) [1989] ZASCA 8; [1989] 2 All SA 273 (A) (14 March 1989)

The court held that the town planning scheme restricts the use of the property to a dwelling house for human habitation. Clause 18(e) allows the occupier of a dwelling house to exercise a profession or occupation on the premises only as an ancillary use, not as the sole use. The definition of 'occupier' does not permit the owner to use the property exclusively for professional purposes without residential occupation. The respondent's use of the property solely as consulting rooms for his medical practice is therefore unlawful under the scheme. The appeal succeeds, and the order of the court a quo is replaced with an order granting the application and costs, including the costs of two...

Citation
[1989] ZASCA 8
Parties
Appellant: Stadsraad van Vanderbijlpark; Respondent: M J Uys
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 March 1989
Case Number
546/87
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal upheld; application granted with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Corbett, Grosskopf, Milne, Kumleben, Nicholas
Legal Topics
Town Planning Scheme, Use of Land, Interpretation of Regulations, Locus Standi
Land and Property Administrative Law Town Planning Scheme Use of Land Interpretation of Regulations Locus Standi

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stadsraad van Vanderbijlpark

Appellant

M J Uys

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's use of Erf 368 as consulting rooms for his medical practice is unlawful under the applicable town planning scheme.
  2. 2 Whether clause 18(e) of the scheme permits the exclusive use of a residential property for professional purposes without residential occupation.
  3. 3 Whether the definition of 'occupier' in the scheme allows the owner to use the property solely for professional purposes.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the town planning scheme restricts the use of the property to a dwelling house for human habitation. Clause 18(e) allows the occupier of a dwelling house to exercise a profession or occupation on the premises only as an ancillary use, not as the sole use. The definition of 'occupier' does not permit the owner to use the property exclusively for professional purposes without residential occupation. The respondent's use of the property solely as consulting rooms for his medical practice is therefore unlawful under the scheme. The appeal succeeds, and the order of the court a quo is replaced with an order granting the application and costs, including the costs of two...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; application granted with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application succeeds with costs.
  • An order is granted in terms of paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the notice of motion dated 23 January 1987.