Observatory Civic Association and Another v Trustees for the Time Being of Liesbeek Leisure Properties Trust and Others (12994/21) [2022] ZAWCHC 280; 2023 (1) SA 583 (WCC) (18 March 2022)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
12994/21
Judge
Goliath
The Court found that the consultation process with affected First Nations Groups regarding the River Club development was inadequate, with significant stakeholders excluded or insufficiently engaged. The heritage impact assessment was tainted by conflicts of interest and failed to meet the requirements of meaningful consultation as envisaged by the National Heritage Resources Act and constitutional principles. The applicants established a prima facie right to protection of cultural heritage and a reasonable apprehension of irreparable harm if construction continued. The balance of convenience…
Provincial Heritage Authority, Eastern Cape v Mellon Developments (CA 254/2019; 515/2018) [2021] ZAECGHC 100 (18 November 2021)
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Case number
CA 254/2019; 515/2018
Judges
Hartle, Schoeman, Rusi
The appeal was rendered moot because the respondent sold and transferred the property before the appeal was heard, making any order regarding the demolition permit ineffective. The Heritage Act confers a personal right to the permit applicant, which cannot be transferred to a new owner. The respondent, as a reasonable litigant, should have informed the appellant of the sale once the suspensive conditions were fulfilled, thereby avoiding unnecessary costs. The court found that the costs of the appeal were wasted and should be borne by the respondent, while the costs order of the court a quo sh…
Bryer N.O. and Others v Heritage Western Cape (16392/2017) [2018] ZAWCHC 67; 2018 (5) SA 597 (WCC) (11 June 2018)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
16392/2017
Judge
J Cloete
The court set aside a stop works order and held that, under section 38 of the National Heritage Resources Act, “site” means the actual area of development, not the whole erf.
Langa and Others v Ivanplats (Pty) Ltd and Others (92090/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 829 (16 February 2017)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
92090/2016
Judge
Murphy
The applicants failed to establish a clear or prima facie right to an interdict restraining the relocation of graves. The majority of next-of-kin had consented to the relocations and entered into binding MOUs with Ivanplats, and those with a direct and substantial interest were not joined as parties, rendering the application fatally defective for non-joinder. The statutory requirements for consultation and agreement under the National Heritage Resources Act were met, and the permits were lawfully issued. The application for review was out of time under PAJA, with no condonation sought or fac…
Gees v Provincial Minister of Cultural affairs and Sport, Western Cape and Others (974/2015) [2016] ZASCA 136; 2017 (1) SA 1 (SCA) (29 September 2016)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
974/2015
Judges
Maya, Bosielo, Seriti, Fourie, Dlodlo
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that s 48(2) of the National Heritage Resources Act confers a broad discretion on heritage authorities to impose conditions in permits, not limited to formally protected heritage areas. The conditions imposed on the demolition permit for Erf 1444 were aimed at conserving the heritage character of the surrounding area, which is in the process of being formally protected. The court found that the conditions were lawful, reasonable, and equitable, and did not amount to arbitrary deprivation of property under s 25(1) of the Constitution. The appeal was dismissed,…
Reizis NO v MEC for the Department Sport, Arts, Culture and Recreation and Others (A99/2012) [2013] ZAFSHC 20 (28 February 2013)
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Case number
A99/2012
Judges
Lekale, Rampai
The court held that the MEC lacked authority to decide an appeal not properly before him under the NHRA, set aside that decision, and remitted the matter.