Tembu Convenience Centre CC and Another v City of Johannesburg and Others (270/2018) [2018] ZASCA 160; 2019 (4) SA 194 (SCA) (28 November 2018)

Tembu Convenience Centre CC and Another v City of Johannesburg and Others (270/2018) [2018] ZASCA 160; 2019 (4) SA 194 (SCA) (28 November 2018)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the creation of dedicated bus lanes and the installation of physical barriers in Mooki Street did not amount to a permanent closure or diversion of part of the street within the meaning of section 67 of the Local Government Ordinance 17 of 1939. The court found that the closure was only for a particular class of traffic—vehicles other than Rea Vaya buses—and thus fell under section 66(1), which does not require the procedures of section 67. The court distinguished the present facts from previous cases where streets were closed or diverted to all traffic or where physical changes rendered parts of streets inaccessible to all vehicles. The court...

Citation
[2018] ZASCA 160
Parties
Appellant: Tembu Convenience Centre CC; Appellant: John Zakhele Radebe; Respondent: City of Johannesburg; Respondent: Johannesburg Development Agency (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Johannesburg Road Agency (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 November 2018
Case Number
270/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Gauteng Local Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Ponnan, Tshiqi, Saldulker, Mokgohloa, Rogers
Legal Topics
Municipal Powers, Road Closure, Compensation for Loss, Traffic Regulation, Local Government Ordinance, Dedicated Bus Lane
Land and Property Administrative Law Civil Procedure Municipal Powers Road Closure Compensation for Loss Traffic Regulation Local Government Ordinance +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tembu Convenience Centre CC

Appellant

John Zakhele Radebe

Appellant

City of Johannesburg

Respondent

Johannesburg Development Agency (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Johannesburg Road Agency (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Gauteng Local Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the creation of dedicated bus lanes and physical barriers in Mooki Street constituted a permanent closure or diversion of part of the street under section 67 of the Local Government Ordinance 17 of 1939.
  2. 2 Whether the actions of the City of Johannesburg required compliance with section 67, including publication of notice and compensation procedures.
  3. 3 Whether the closure was for all traffic or only for a particular class of traffic, and the legal consequences thereof.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the creation of dedicated bus lanes and the installation of physical barriers in Mooki Street did not amount to a permanent closure or diversion of part of the street within the meaning of section 67 of the Local Government Ordinance 17 of 1939. The court found that the closure was only for a particular class of traffic—vehicles other than Rea Vaya buses—and thus fell under section 66(1), which does not require the procedures of section 67. The court distinguished the present facts from previous cases where streets were closed or diverted to all traffic or where physical changes rendered parts of streets inaccessible to all vehicles. The court...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including those attendant on the employment of two counsel.