South Africa Case Law

Telkom SA SOC Limited v City of Cape Town and Another (CCT287/19)

Telkom SA SOC Limited v City of Cape Town and Another (CCT287/19) [2020] ZACC 15; 2020 (10) BCLR 1283 (CC); 2021 (1) SA 1 (CC) (25 June 2020)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 287/19

Judges

Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Majiedt, Mathopo, Mhlantla, Theron, Victor

The Constitutional Court held that the exercise of rights under section 22 of the Electronic Communications Act is subject to compliance with municipal bylaws and policies. The Court found that municipal planning, including zoning and land use regulation, falls within the exclusive competence of municipalities under section 156(1) of the Constitution and Part B of Schedule 4. The impugned bylaw regulates land use, not telecommunications, and does not conflict with section 22 of the Act, as licensees are required to pay due regard to applicable law. The Court rejected Telkom's argument that mu…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Planning
• Bylaw Validity
• Electronic Communications Act
• Conflict Of Laws
• Zoning And Land Use
• Constitutional Competence

Telkom SA Soc Ltd v Kalu NO and Another (10354/2017)

Telkom SA Soc Ltd v Kalu NO and Another (10354/2017) [2018] ZAWCHC 53 (10 May 2018)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

10354/2017

Judge

Andrews AJ

The court held that the City of Cape Town's Municipal Planning By-laws, Zoning Scheme Regulations, and Telecommunications Mast Infrastructure Policy do not conflict with Section 22 of the Electronic Communications Act. Municipalities have exclusive legislative competence over municipal planning, including zoning and land use, even for purposes that affect national interests such as telecommunications. Section 22 of the ECA does not exempt licensees from complying with municipal zoning or building regulations; rather, it requires due regard to applicable law. The By-law and Mast Policy are val…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Planning
• Conflict Of Laws
• Electronic Communications Act
• Zoning Regulations
• Building Plan Approval
• Constitutional Competence

Minister for Mineral Resources v Swartland Municipality and Others (CCT 102/11)

Minister for Mineral Resources v Swartland Municipality and Others (CCT 102/11) [2012] ZACC 8; 2012 (7) BCLR 712 (CC) (12 April 2012)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 102/11

Judges

Jafta, Mogoeng, Yacoob, Cameron, Froneman, Khampepe, Maya, Nkabinde, Skweyiya, Van der Westhuizen, Zondo

The Constitutional Court held that a mining right under the MPRDA does not replace LUPO zoning requirements. The appeal was dismissed and rezoning remained necessary.

• Land Use Planning
• Mining Rights
• Municipal Powers
• Rezoning
• Concurrent Jurisdiction
• Constitutional Competence

Lagoon Bay Lifestyle Estate (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning of the Western Cape and Others (10751/2011)

Lagoon Bay Lifestyle Estate (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning of the Western Cape and Others (10751/2011) [2011] ZAWCHC 327; [2011] 4 All SA 270 (WCC) (31 August 2011)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

10751/2011

Judge

Griesel

The court held that the Minister's reservation of final approval for rezoning and subdivision was constitutionally permissible and not ultra vires. The constitutional scheme does not allocate municipal planning powers in hermetically sealed compartments; provincial governments retain concurrent and supervisory powers, especially for developments with regional impact. The Minister acted within his statutory powers under LUPO and the Constitution. The applicant's reliance on the Gauteng Development Tribunal case was misplaced, as that judgment did not address the complex relationship between pr…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Planning
• Provincial Oversight
• Rezoning And Subdivision
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Constitutional Competence
• Sustainable Development