South Africa Case Law

eThekwini Municipality v Brand IQ (Pty) Ltd and Others (D5464/2024)

eThekwini Municipality v Brand IQ (Pty) Ltd and Others (D5464/2024) [2024] ZAKZDHC 47 (12 July 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D5464/2024

Judge

P J Combrinck

The court found that the respondents erected a substantial outdoor advertising structure without obtaining the required municipal permit or approved building plans, in clear contravention of the eThekwini Municipality: Outdoor Advertising By-law, 2018 and the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act. The structure qualifies as a 'building' under the Act, and the applicant was entitled to seek a demolition order. The respondents' arguments that the structure was not a 'building' and that building plan requirements were not lawfully imposed were rejected. The court held that it…

Source excerpt

• Municipal By Laws
• Building Regulations
• Demolition Orders
• Outdoor Advertising
• Interim Interdict
• Selective Enforcement

Bells Trust v Canvas Outdoor Pty (Ltd) and Another (A5065/2022)

Bells Trust v Canvas Outdoor Pty (Ltd) and Another (A5065/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 630 (5 June 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A5065/2022

Judges

S D J Wilson, Windell, Mia

The High Court held the Bells Trust had a direct and substantial interest and should have been allowed to intervene in a review over billboard approval.

• Intervention Application
• Direct And Substantial Interest
• Municipal Bylaws
• Outdoor Advertising
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Intervention-application

Body Corporate of the Overbeek Building, Cape Town v Independent Outdoor Media (Pty) Ltd and Others (4838/2021 ; 3491/2016)

Body Corporate of the Overbeek Building, Cape Town v Independent Outdoor Media (Pty) Ltd and Others (4838/2021 ; 3491/2016) [2022] ZAWCHC 2; 2022 (4) SA 167 (WCC) (21 January 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

4838/2021 ; 3491/2016

Judge

E D Wille

Section 29(8) of the Building Standards Act is constitutionally invalid as it impermissibly infringes on the exclusive legislative authority of municipalities to make by-laws. The section requires ministerial approval for municipal by-laws relating to building regulations, which violates the doctrine of separation of powers and municipal autonomy enshrined in the Constitution. The impugned section is 'old order' legislation incompatible with the constitutional framework that vests original law-making powers in municipalities. The court found that the Overbeek Signs were not approved under the…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Legislative Powers
• Building Regulations
• Separation Of Powers
• Constitutional Invalidity
• Outdoor Advertising
• By Law Enforcement

Urban Ocean Property Development (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others (48950/2017)

Urban Ocean Property Development (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others (48950/2017) [2018] ZAGPJHC 648 (12 December 2018)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

48950/2017

Judge

M Tsoka

The High Court reviewed and set aside Johannesburg’s refusal of an outdoor advertising application, finding the city applied the wrong by-law provision and acted on legal error.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Municipal By Laws
• Outdoor Advertising
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Administrative-law
• Municipal-law

Lesedi News CC v Rustenburg Local Municipality (4/14)

Lesedi News CC v Rustenburg Local Municipality (4/14) [2014] ZANWHC 35 (6 November 2014)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

4/14

Judges

A.M. Kgoele, R.D. Hendricks, Samkelo Gura

The Full Bench held that the respondent's decision to require the appellant to dismantle advertising structures was not administrative action under PAJA. The relationship between the parties was governed by contract, concluded on equal terms after a tender process, and the respondent's power to act derived from the contract, not from statute or a position of public authority. The statutory framework and by-laws were incorporated into the contract, but the impugned decision was made pursuant to contractual terms, not as an exercise of public power. The authorities relied upon by the appellant…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Municipal Powers
• Contractual Termination
• Outdoor Advertising
• Public Power Vs Contract
• Review Of Administrative Action

City of Johannesburg and Another v Ad Outpost (Pty) Ltd (55/11)

City of Johannesburg and Another v Ad Outpost (Pty) Ltd (55/11) [2012] ZASCA 40; 2012 (4) SA 325 (SCA) (29 March 2012)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

55/11

Judges

Farlam, Van Heerden, Mhlantla, Leach, Ndita

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent's renewal applications for billboard advertising rights were pending when the 2009 by-laws came into effect, as the invalid administrative decisions refusing those applications must be regarded as never having been made once set aside. Clause 39(3) of the 2009 by-laws requires that any pending application be dealt with under those by-laws. The 2009 by-laws impose an absolute prohibition on advertising signs in the prohibited areas where the respondent's billboards are located, leaving the City with no discretion to grant approval. The respo…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Administrative Action
• Municipal By Laws
• Outdoor Advertising
• Legality Of Administrative Decisions

Wideopen Platform v City of Cape Town (25622/09)

Wideopen Platform v City of Cape Town (25622/09) [2009] ZAWCHC 191 (18 December 2009)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

25622/09

Judge

Davis

The court found that the advertising structures erected by the applicant on municipal land were subject to the City of Cape Town: Outdoor Advertising and Signage By-law. The structures qualified as 'advertising structures' and not exempt 'street furniture.' The respondent followed the procedural requirements under sections 75 and 76 of the By-law, serving notices and allowing time for removal before acting. The land in question belonged to the municipality, and the respondent was entitled to remove the structures without a court order. The applicant failed to establish peaceful and undisturbe…

Source excerpt

• Spoliation Order
• Municipal By Laws
• Estoppel
• Outdoor Advertising
• Environmental Regulation