Universal Homes v Reddy NO; Universal Homes v Housing Development Board (House of Delegates) (517/95) [1997] ZASCA 29 (26 March 1997)

Universal Homes v Reddy NO; Universal Homes v Housing Development Board (House of Delegates) (517/95) [1997] ZASCA 29 (26 March 1997)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 10(2)(b)(ii) of the Housing Development Act (House of Delegates), 1987, requires ministerial approval for the Board to approve housing projects and grant loans. The absence of such approval renders the Board's purported approval a nullity. The evidence established that the Minister had given neither general nor particular approval to the plaintiff's project. The Board's notification to the plaintiff did not imply that ministerial approval had been granted, and any assumption to that effect by the plaintiff was unjustified. The statutory requirements for securing loans by a first mortgage bond were not met, further invalidating the approval....

Citation
[1997] ZASCA 29
Parties
Appellant: Universal Homes; Respondent: PR J N Reddy NO; Respondent: Housing Development Board (House of Delegates)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 March 1997
Case Number
517/95
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of the Durban and Coast Local Division; Consolidated Actions; Liability Tried Separately From Quantum; Appeal Against Absolution From the Instance
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel. Appellant's attorneys ordered to pay, de bonis propriis, all costs incurred in respect of one tenth of the appeal record and not entitled to fees for that portion.
Judges
Hefer, Vivier, F H Grosskopf, Olivier, Streicher
Legal Topics
Ministerial Approval, Statutory Nullity, Negligent Misrepresentation, Housing Development Act, Public Interest Control, Estoppel
Land and Property Administrative Law Civil Procedure Ministerial Approval Statutory Nullity Negligent Misrepresentation Housing Development Act Public Interest Control +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Universal Homes

Appellant

PR J N Reddy NO

Respondent

Housing Development Board (House of Delegates)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of the Durban and Coast Local Division; Consolidated Actions; Liability Tried Separately From Quantum; Appeal Against Absolution From the Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the approval of the Minister under section 10(2)(b)(ii) of the Housing Development Act (House of Delegates), 1987, was a peremptory requirement for the validity of the Board's approval of the housing project.
  2. 2 Whether the Board's approval of the plaintiff's project without the Minister's approval was a nullity.
  3. 3 Whether the Board negligently misrepresented to the plaintiff that the project had been validly approved.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 10(2)(b)(ii) of the Housing Development Act (House of Delegates), 1987, requires ministerial approval for the Board to approve housing projects and grant loans. The absence of such approval renders the Board's purported approval a nullity. The evidence established that the Minister had given neither general nor particular approval to the plaintiff's project. The Board's notification to the plaintiff did not imply that ministerial approval had been granted, and any assumption to that effect by the plaintiff was unjustified. The statutory requirements for securing loans by a first mortgage bond were not met, further invalidating the approval....

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel. Appellant's attorneys ordered to pay, de bonis propriis, all costs incurred in respect of one tenth of the appeal record and not entitled to fees for that portion.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs of two counsel.
  • The appellant's attorneys are ordered to pay, de bonis propriis, all the costs incurred in respect of one tenth of the appeal record and will not be entitled to any fees in respect thereof.