Van Waveren N.O and Others v Municipal Manager City of Polokwane Local Municipality and Others (7946/2024) [2024] ZALMPPHC 87 (12 August 2024)

Van Waveren N.O and Others v Municipal Manager City of Polokwane Local Municipality and Others (7946/2024) [2024] ZALMPPHC 87 (12 August 2024)

The court found that the applicants, as current registered owners of the property, have a prima facie right adversely affected by the adjacent development. The dismissal of their appeal on the basis that they were not the original objectors was fatally flawed, as SPLUMA grants locus standi to any interested person whose rights may be affected. The requirements for interim relief—prima facie right, reasonable apprehension of irreparable harm, balance of convenience, and absence of satisfactory alternative remedy—were satisfied. Internal remedies under PAJA do not preclude interim interdicts pending review. The court held that justice demands interim relief to prevent potential economic...

Citation
[2024] ZALMPPHC 87
Parties
Applicant: Jan Willem van Waveren N.O.; Applicant: Nicolaas van Waveren N.O.; Applicant: Lizelle Erasmus N.O.; Respondent: Municipal Manager: City of Polokwane Local Municipality; Respondent: City of Polokwane Local Municipality; Respondent: Chairperson: Municipal Planning Tribunal, City of Polokwane Local Municipality; Respondent: Chairperson: Municipal Appeal Tribunal, City of Polokwane Local Municipality; Respondent: Controller of Petroleum Products; Respondent: Shell Downstream South Africa (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Golokeng (Pty) Ltd
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 August 2024
Case Number
7946/2024
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Pending Review (part A)
Outcome
Interim interdict granted pending outcome of review; costs reserved for main application.
Judges
M Bresler
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Locus Standi, Municipal Planning, Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, Public Participation, Internal Remedies
Administrative Law Land and Property Civil Procedure Interim Interdict Locus Standi Municipal Planning Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act Public Participation +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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jan Willem van Waveren N.O.

Applicant

Nicolaas van Waveren N.O.

Applicant

Lizelle Erasmus N.O.

Applicant

Municipal Manager: City of Polokwane Local Municipality

Respondent

City of Polokwane Local Municipality

Respondent

Chairperson: Municipal Planning Tribunal, City of Polokwane Local Municipality

Respondent

Chairperson: Municipal Appeal Tribunal, City of Polokwane Local Municipality

Respondent

Controller of Petroleum Products

Respondent

Shell Downstream South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Golokeng (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Pending Review (part A)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have locus standi to seek interim relief pending review.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for interim interdictory relief are satisfied.
  3. 3 Whether internal remedies under PAJA preclude interim relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants, as current registered owners of the property, have a prima facie right adversely affected by the adjacent development. The dismissal of their appeal on the basis that they were not the original objectors was fatally flawed, as SPLUMA grants locus standi to any interested person whose rights may be affected. The requirements for interim relief—prima facie right, reasonable apprehension of irreparable harm, balance of convenience, and absence of satisfactory alternative remedy—were satisfied. Internal remedies under PAJA do not preclude interim interdicts pending review. The court held that justice demands interim relief to prevent potential economic...

Court Disposition

Interim interdict granted pending outcome of review; costs reserved for main application.

Orders

  • The application is heard as an urgent application under Uniform Rule 6(12); requirements of forms and service are dispensed with.
  • Pending the outcome of Part B, the First to Seventh Respondents are interdicted and restrained from giving effect to or allowing execution of the impugned decisions regarding the subject property and township development, by virtue of any proclamation, approval, consent, authorisation, or licence.