Vermaak and Others v Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs of the Republic of South Africa and Others (224/2013) [2013] ZAECPEHC 45 (17 September 2013)

Vermaak and Others v Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs of the Republic of South Africa and Others (224/2013) [2013] ZAECPEHC 45 (17 September 2013)

The court found that the application for leave to appeal against the costs order of 19 March 2013 was out of time and no condonation was sought, but the respondents did not object and the merits were addressed. The appeal against the costs order would have no practical effect, as the seventh respondent was joined and the only issue is costs, which is a matter of judicial discretion. No exceptional circumstances were established to justify leave to appeal on costs. Regarding the main judgment of 1 August 2013, the court held that the applicants failed to show reasonable prospects of success on appeal concerning the interpretation of section 44 of LUPO and the refusal of the interim...

Citation
[2013] ZAECPEHC 45
Parties
Applicant: Petrus Johannes Vermaak; Applicant: Robert C.A. Bell; Applicant: Jennifer Bell; Applicant: George Chamberlain; Applicant: Gerhard Saayman; Applicant: Carel Scheepers; Applicant: Lerischia Scheepers; Applicant: Shirley Wagner-Welsh; Applicant: Johan C Wagner; Applicant: Deon P Gouws; Applicant: Deal Making Investments (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Jan Burger Pienaar; Applicant: David Lister; Applicant: Virginia Lister; Respondent: Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs of the Republic of South Africa; Respondent: Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality; Respondent: Metrowind (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Rubicept (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Jacobus Olivier N.O.; Respondent: Deon Olivier N.O.; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council for Housing and Traditional Affairs Eastern Cape Province
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 September 2013
Case Number
224/2013
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Two Prior Judgments: Preliminary Costs Order and Main Interim Interdict Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs, including costs of two counsel for the Third and Fourth Respondents.
Judges
Goosen
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Costs Orders, Interim Interdict, Land Use Planning Ordinance, Judicial Discretion, Practical Effect of Appeal
Civil Procedure Land and Property Administrative Law Leave to Appeal Costs Orders Interim Interdict Land Use Planning Ordinance Judicial Discretion +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petrus Johannes Vermaak

Applicant

Robert C.A. Bell

Applicant

Jennifer Bell

Applicant

George Chamberlain

Applicant

Gerhard Saayman

Applicant

Carel Scheepers

Applicant

Lerischia Scheepers

Applicant

Shirley Wagner-Welsh

Applicant

Johan C Wagner

Applicant

Deon P Gouws

Applicant

Deal Making Investments (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Jan Burger Pienaar

Applicant

David Lister

Applicant

Virginia Lister

Applicant

Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs of the Republic of South Africa

Respondent

Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality

Respondent

Metrowind (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Rubicept (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Jacobus Olivier N.O.

Respondent

Deon Olivier N.O.

Respondent

Member of the Executive Council for Housing and Traditional Affairs Eastern Cape Province

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Two Prior Judgments: Preliminary Costs Order and Main Interim Interdict Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the costs order made in the preliminary judgment of 19 March 2013.
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the main judgment of 1 August 2013 concerning the interim interdict and interpretation of section 44 of LUPO.
  3. 3 Whether the appeal would have any practical effect or result, particularly in relation to costs and the interdict pending review.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for leave to appeal against the costs order of 19 March 2013 was out of time and no condonation was sought, but the respondents did not object and the merits were addressed. The appeal against the costs order would have no practical effect, as the seventh respondent was joined and the only issue is costs, which is a matter of judicial discretion. No exceptional circumstances were established to justify leave to appeal on costs. Regarding the main judgment of 1 August 2013, the court held that the applicants failed to show reasonable prospects of success on appeal concerning the interpretation of section 44 of LUPO and the refusal of the interim...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs, including costs of two counsel for the Third and Fourth Respondents.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused with costs.
  • Costs for the Third and Fourth Respondents to include the costs of two counsel.