South Africa Case Law

Swartland Municipality v Louw NO and Others (13703/09)

Swartland Municipality v Louw NO and Others (13703/09) [2009] ZAWCHC 203; 2010 (5) SA 314 (WCC) (21 December 2009)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

13703/09

Judge

Le Grange

The court held that LUPO remains valid and enforceable in relation to land use planning and zoning, including for mining activities, and is not inconsistent with the MPRDA or the Constitution. The MPRDA does not impliedly repeal LUPO, nor does it exempt mining right holders from compliance with provincial and municipal zoning laws. The reference to 'any other relevant law' in the MPRDA includes LUPO, and the municipality retains its constitutional and statutory authority to regulate land use and enforce zoning. There is no constitutional conflict between LUPO and the MPRDA, as both can be rea…

Source excerpt

• Zoning And Land Use
• Municipal Planning
• Mining Rights
• Conflict Of Laws
• Provincial Legislation
• Constitutional Interpretation

Weare and Another v Ndebele NO and Others (CCT15/08)

Weare and Another v Ndebele NO and Others (CCT15/08) [2008] ZACC 20; 2009 (1) SA 600 (CC); 2009 (4) BCLR 370 (CC) (18 November 2008)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 15/08

Judges

Van der Westhuizen, Langa, Moseneke, Madala, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, O'Regan, Sachs, Yacoob

The Constitutional Court held that the invalidation of a provincial ordinance by the High Court must be confirmed by the Constitutional Court, as such ordinances, when amended or incorporated by the provincial legislature, are to be treated as provincial Acts for confirmation purposes. On the merits, the Court found that section 22(5) of the KwaZulu-Natal Regulation of Racing and Betting Ordinance does not violate section 9(1) of the Constitution. The differentiation between natural and juristic persons is rationally linked to the legitimate government purpose of regulating gambling, as it is…

Source excerpt

• Equality Before The Law
• Provincial Legislation
• Gambling Regulation
• Unfair Discrimination
• Juristic Persons Rights
• Confirmation Of Invalidity

S v Setsoale (A220/2006)

S v Setsoale (A220/2006) [2006] ZAGPHC 157 (27 February 2006)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

A220/2006

Judges

S J Mynhardt, B R du Plessis

Review judgment setting aside a conviction for hunting warthogs without a permit because warthogs were not included in the Act’s definition of “game”.

• Illegal Hunting
• Statutory Interpretation
• Definition Of Game
• Provincial Legislation
• Statutory-interpretation
• Wildlife-law