Tridevco (Pty) Ltd and Others v Zenprop Property Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (8578/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 658 (3 September 2018)

Tridevco (Pty) Ltd and Others v Zenprop Property Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (8578/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 658 (3 September 2018)

The court found that the applicants, particularly Tridevco, failed to provide a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in instituting review proceedings. The evidence showed that they should have been aware of the impugned decision as early as 2011, given their business experience and the information available in commissioned reports. The applicants did not bring a substantive application under section 9 of PAJA and their explanation for the delay was inconsistent and inadequate. The court held that the application for review fell outside the prescribed time periods and declined to extend the period under section 9, finding no interests of justice warranting such indulgence. The...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 658
Parties
Applicant: Tridevco (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Balero Properties CC; Applicant: Glen Ballad Properties; Applicant: Johannes van Eck Viljoen; Applicant: Johannes Albertus Kuhn van Wyk; Applicant: K L Development (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Zenprop Property Holdings (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Allan James Flynn Mundell N.O.; Respondent: Adam John Blow N.O.; Respondent: James Otto Tannenberger N.O.; Respondent: Johannes Jacobus Antonius Labuschagne N.O.; Respondent: Sharmaine Labuschagne N.O.; Respondent: Robert George Mendonca Velosa N.O.; Respondent: The Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: The MEC: Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Gauteng Province
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 September 2018
Case Number
8578/2016
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review and Amendment Application
Outcome
Application for amendment to the notice of motion and review application dismissed; costs awarded against applicants on punitive scale.
Judges
Vally
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Delay in Review, Town Planning Ordinance, Extension of Time, Declaratory Relief, Costs Punitive
Administrative Law Land and Property Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Delay in Review Town Planning Ordinance Extension of Time Declaratory Relief +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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tridevco (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Balero Properties CC

Applicant

Glen Ballad Properties

Applicant

Johannes van Eck Viljoen

Applicant

Johannes Albertus Kuhn van Wyk

Applicant

K L Development (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Zenprop Property Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Allan James Flynn Mundell N.O.

Respondent

Adam John Blow N.O.

Respondent

James Otto Tannenberger N.O.

Respondent

Johannes Jacobus Antonius Labuschagne N.O.

Respondent

Sharmaine Labuschagne N.O.

Respondent

Robert George Mendonca Velosa N.O.

Respondent

The Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

The MEC: Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Gauteng Province

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review and Amendment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' review application was instituted within the prescribed period under section 7(1) of PAJA.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay and are entitled to an extension under section 9 of PAJA.
  3. 3 Whether the township approval granted to the respondents had lapsed under section 72(1) of the Town Planning Ordinance.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants, particularly Tridevco, failed to provide a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in instituting review proceedings. The evidence showed that they should have been aware of the impugned decision as early as 2011, given their business experience and the information available in commissioned reports. The applicants did not bring a substantive application under section 9 of PAJA and their explanation for the delay was inconsistent and inadequate. The court held that the application for review fell outside the prescribed time periods and declined to extend the period under section 9, finding no interests of justice warranting such indulgence. The...

Court Disposition

Application for amendment to the notice of motion and review application dismissed; costs awarded against applicants on punitive scale.

Orders

  • The application for an amendment to the notice of motion is dismissed.
  • The application is dismissed.