Highway Junction (Pty) Ltd and Others v Di-Thabeng Truck and Taxi (Pty) Ltd and Others (5821/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 209 (25 August 2022)

Highway Junction (Pty) Ltd and Others v Di-Thabeng Truck and Taxi (Pty) Ltd and Others (5821/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 209 (25 August 2022)

The court found that, given the differing interpretations of the regulatory and legislative enactments governing land use and planning, there exists a reasonable possibility that another court may reach a different conclusion regarding both the restraint imposed and the refusal of further relief. The matter involves complex statutory interpretation and the application of planning law, which warrants consideration by the Supreme Court of Appeal. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted to both parties, with the respondents' appeal designated as the main appeal and the applicants' as the cross-appeal.

Citation
[2022] ZAFSHC 209
Parties
Applicant: Highway Junction (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Swinburne Village Home Owners Association NPC; Applicant: Swinburne Store CC; Respondent: Di-Thabeng Truck and Taxi (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Di-Thabeng Logistics (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Di-Thabeng Finance (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Di-Thabeng Fuel Supply (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Di-Thabeng Fuel Management (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council, Free State Provincial Department of Economic, Small Business Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs; Respondent: Maluti-a-Phofung Local Municipality; Respondent: Minister of Water and Sanitation; Respondent: Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy; Respondent: Controller of Petroleum Products
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 August 2022
Case Number
5821/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order
Outcome
Leave to appeal against the whole of the judgment is granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The First to Fifth Respondents' application is the main appeal and the original Applicants' appeal is the cross-appeal. Costs of the application for leave to appeal will be costs in the appeal.
Judges
ZIETSMAN P
Legal Topics
Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, Municipal Planning by Law, Interdictory Relief, Change of Land Use
Land and Property Administrative Law Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act Municipal Planning by Law Interdictory Relief Change of Land Use

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Highway Junction (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Swinburne Village Home Owners Association NPC

Applicant

Swinburne Store CC

Applicant

Di-Thabeng Truck and Taxi (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Di-Thabeng Logistics (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Di-Thabeng Finance (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Di-Thabeng Fuel Supply (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Di-Thabeng Fuel Management (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Member of the Executive Council, Free State Provincial Department of Economic, Small Business Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs

Respondent

Maluti-a-Phofung Local Municipality

Respondent

Minister of Water and Sanitation

Respondent

Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy

Respondent

Controller of Petroleum Products

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the order restraining the use of the property for non-agricultural purposes.
  2. 2 Whether the refusal of further interdictory relief to the applicants warrants leave to appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the interpretation of regulatory and legislative enactments justifies appellate review.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, given the differing interpretations of the regulatory and legislative enactments governing land use and planning, there exists a reasonable possibility that another court may reach a different conclusion regarding both the restraint imposed and the refusal of further relief. The matter involves complex statutory interpretation and the application of planning law, which warrants consideration by the Supreme Court of Appeal. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted to both parties, with the respondents' appeal designated as the main appeal and the applicants' as the cross-appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against the whole of the judgment is granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The First to Fifth Respondents' application is the main appeal and the original Applicants' appeal is the cross-appeal. Costs of the application for leave to appeal will be costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal against the whole of the judgment is granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
  • The First to Fifth Respondents' application is to be regarded as the main appeal and the original Applicants' appeal as the cross-appeal.