South Africa Case Law

Interactive Risk Management (Pty) Limited and Another v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Another (2024/051717)

Interactive Risk Management (Pty) Limited and Another v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Another (2024/051717) [2025] ZAGPPHC 245 (3 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2024/051717

Judge

N P Mngqibisa-Thusi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish a prima facie right to the interim interdict. The mere institution of review proceedings does not entitle the applicants to interim relief, as the right to review is not the right threatened by imminent irreparable harm. The applicants did not demonstrate that their rights would be negated if construction continued, as the reviewing court retains the power to grant just and equitable relief, including demolition, should the review succeed. The applicants also failed to show a reasonable apprehension of irreparable harm, and the balance o…

Source excerpt

• Interim Interdict
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Spatial Planning And Land Use Management Act
• Municipal Planning Tribunal
• Urgency
• Restrictive Title Conditions

Du Toit and Another v Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality and Others (6019/2022)

Du Toit and Another v Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality and Others (6019/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 339 (22 August 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

6019/2022

Judge

JP Daffue

The court held that the applicants, as owners of adjacent property, are directly affected persons under section 42 of SPLUMA and common law, and thus entitled to participate in the Municipal Planning Tribunal hearing regarding the Trust's land use application. Section 45 of SPLUMA does not require such persons to formally apply for intervener status; it applies to those not directly affected. The Municipality's partial compliance with the court order and its awareness of the applicants' interest further supported their standing. The rule nisi was confirmed, and the Municipality was ordered to…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Planning Tribunal
• Spatial Planning And Land Use Management Act
• Locus Standi
• Procedural Fairness
• Urgent Interdict

Confident Concept (PTY) Limited v Member of the Mayoral Committee :Development Planning -City of Johannesburg and Others (617/2018)

Confident Concept (PTY) Limited v Member of the Mayoral Committee :Development Planning -City of Johannesburg and Others (617/2018) [2022] ZAGPJHC 986 (13 December 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

617/2018

Judge

L R Adams

The MMC's decision to uphold the appeal against the rezoning approval was fundamentally flawed. It was based on incorrect assumptions regarding coverage requirements, failed to consider relevant expert reports, and ignored the lawful approval of the original building plans. The MMC took into account irrelevant factors, such as the relative size of the property, and did not establish a rational connection between the information before him and the decision made. The MMC also acted beyond the scope of the appeal by issuing directions regarding building plans, which were not the subject of the a…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Judicial Review Of Administrative Action
• Rezoning Application
• Municipal Planning Tribunal
• Coverage Requirements
• Bias And Irregularity

Stoney River Prop 199 CC v Automotive Parts Exports (PTY) LTD and Others (1235/2018)

Stoney River Prop 199 CC v Automotive Parts Exports (PTY) LTD and Others (1235/2018) [2022] ZALMPTHC 7 (17 May 2022)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou

Case number

1235/2018

Judge

AML Phatudi

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against an order setting aside municipal tribunal approvals for a township establishment.

• Township Establishment
• Municipal Planning Tribunal
• Leave To Appeal
• Notice Requirements
• Leave-to-appeal
• Township-establishment

VanHeerden v Appeal Authority IRO The Pixley Ka Seme District Municipality and Others (2849/2017)

VanHeerden v Appeal Authority IRO The Pixley Ka Seme District Municipality and Others (2849/2017) [2019] ZANCHC 39 (30 August 2019)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

2849/2017

Judges

Williams, O'Brien

The court found that the approval of the trust's building plans and the removal of restrictive title deed conditions were unlawful and irrational due to procedural defects and failure to comply with statutory requirements. The respondents did not provide adequate notice to all affected property owners as required by SPLUMA and the municipal by-law, thereby denying them the opportunity to object. The decisions of the municipal planning tribunal and appeal authority were not rationally connected to the information before them, nor were adequate reasons provided for their actions. The respondent…

Source excerpt

• Removal Of Restrictive Conditions
• Spatial Planning And Land Use Management Act
• Municipal Planning Tribunal
• Procedural Fairness
• Title Deed Restrictions
• Judicial Review

Artio Investments (Pty) Ltd (In Liquidation) and Others v Local Municipality of Madibeng and Others (39895/2017)

Artio Investments (Pty) Ltd (In Liquidation) and Others v Local Municipality of Madibeng and Others (39895/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 591 (28 May 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

39895/2017

Judge

AC Sasson

The High Court held that SPLUMA governs the removal of restrictive title deed conditions and that Madibeng Municipality was the competent authority to decide the application.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Spatial Planning And Land Use Management Act
• Removal Of Restrictive Conditions
• Municipal Planning Tribunal
• Judicial Review
• Abuse Of Process