South Africa Case Law

De Kock v Bitou Municipality and Others (A408/2017)

De Kock v Bitou Municipality and Others (A408/2017) [2018] ZAWCHC 95 (7 August 2018)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A408/2017

Judges

Binns-Ward, Sher, Engers

The court held that s 44(2) of LUPO must be interpreted contextually, allowing the provincial minister to substitute his own decision for that of the municipality, regardless of the validity of the antecedent municipal decisions. The minister's determination on appeal rendered the prior municipal decisions moot, and judicial review of those antecedent decisions was unnecessary. The use of agents to submit planning applications was lawful where the registered owners had provided proper authority. The absence of the Minister of Agriculture's consent at the time of municipal approval did not aff…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Review
• Internal Remedies
• Municipal Planning
• Rezoning And Subdivision
• Delegation Of Authority

Esquire Consulting and Marketing CC and Others v Sea Glades Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (1315/2016)

Esquire Consulting and Marketing CC and Others v Sea Glades Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (1315/2016) [2017] ZASCA 167 (30 November 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1315/2016

Judges

Ponnan, Bosielo, Leach, Mathopo, Ploos van Amstel

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that erf 3306 was validly rezoned for business use and that LUPO’s two-year utilisation period did not bar a restaurant.

• Land Use Planning Ordinance
• Rezoning And Subdivision
• Municipal Zoning Scheme
• Interdict
• Utilisation Period
• Principle Of Legality

Emathanjeni Municipality v Member of the Executive Council: Department of Co-operative Governance, Human Settlements and Traditional Affairs - Northern Cape Province and Others (1045/2016)

Emathanjeni Municipality v Member of the Executive Council: Department of Co-operative Governance, Human Settlements and Traditional Affairs - Northern Cape Province and Others (1045/2016) [2017] ZANCHC 42 (26 May 2017)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1045/2016

Judges

Mamosebo, Ndlokovane

The court found that the Northern Cape Development Appeal Tribunal did not have the constitutional authority to intervene in municipal planning decisions regarding rezoning and subdivision. The Tribunal's decision to refer the matter back to the Municipality for reconsideration after the environmental authorisation appeal process was unconstitutional, as municipal planning powers are reserved for local government. The procedural shortcomings by the Municipality, including the premature approval and failure to notify interested parties, were not sufficiently material to nullify the authorisati…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Planning
• Environmental Authorisation
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Rezoning And Subdivision

Minister of Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning of the Western Cape v Lagoonbay Lifestyle Estate (Pty) Ltd and Others (CCT 41/13)

Minister of Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning of the Western Cape v Lagoonbay Lifestyle Estate (Pty) Ltd and Others (CCT 41/13) [2013] ZACC 39; 2014 (1) SA 521 (CC); 2014 (2) BCLR 182 (CC) (20 November 2013)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 41/13

Judges

Mhlantla AJ, Moseneke DCJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Jafta J, Madlanga J, Nkabinde J, Skweyiya J, Van der Westhuizen J, Zondo J

The Constitutional Court held that Lagoonbay failed to directly challenge the constitutional validity of LUPO, and thus the Court was bound to determine the dispute on the basis that LUPO is constitutionally valid. Under LUPO, the Provincial Minister was competent to decide rezoning applications, as the relevant structure plan and statutory provisions did not exclude provincial authority where a state institution opposed the rezoning. However, regarding subdivision, the Scheme Regulations empowered the Municipality as the final decision-maker unless it elected not to exercise its power, which…

Source excerpt

• Division Of Powers
• Municipal Planning
• Rezoning And Subdivision
• Ultra Vires
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Structure Plan Amendment

Britannia Beach Estate (Pty) Ltd and Others v Saldanha Bay Municipality (CCT11/13)

Britannia Beach Estate (Pty) Ltd and Others v Saldanha Bay Municipality (CCT11/13) [2013] ZACC 30; 2013 (11) BCLR 1217 (CC) (5 September 2013)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT11/13

Judges

Froneman, Bosielo, Jafta, Khampepe, Mhlantla, Nkabinde, Skweyiya, Zondo

The Constitutional Court held that section 195 of the Constitution does not create an independent right to demand an account from the Municipality. The applicants' claim for a constitutional duty to account is not supported by the Constitution or legislation. Remedies for alleged overpayments are available through ordinary civil proceedings and statutory mechanisms for access to information. The applicants have already instituted a separate action for repayment, and all necessary information is available or obtainable through existing procedures. There is no reasonable prospect of success on…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Accountability
• Leave To Appeal
• Rezoning And Subdivision
• Capital Contributions
• Duty To Account
• Access To Information

Municipality of Stellenbosch v Shelf-Line 104 (Pty) Ltd (SCA)

Municipality of Stellenbosch v Shelf-Line 104 (Pty) Ltd (SCA) [2011] ZASCA 190; 2012 (1) SA 599 (SCA); [2012] 1 All SA 441 (SCA) (3 November 2011)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

615/10

Judges

Heher, Snyders, Shongwe, Majiedt, Plasket

The SCA held that a municipality could not unilaterally raise approved development levies after the developer had accepted the conditions.

• Rezoning And Subdivision
• Bulk Infrastructure Contribution Levies
• Municipal Powers
• Land Use Planning Ordinance
• Amendment Of Conditions
• Developer Consensus

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

South African National Parks v Addo Afrique Estate (Pty) Ltd and Others (1201/2010)

South African National Parks v Addo Afrique Estate (Pty) Ltd and Others (1201/2010) [2011] ZAECGHC 40 (25 August 2011)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

1201/2010

Judge

Smith

The court granted an interim interdict over land near Addo National Park, finding a strong prima facie case that rezoning and subdivision were unlawful.

• Right Of Pre Emption
• Interim Interdict
• Rezoning And Subdivision
• Specific Performance
• Administrative Review
• Delay In Review

Britannia Beach Estate (Pty) Ltd and Others v Saldanha Bay Municipality (14190/2010)

Britannia Beach Estate (Pty) Ltd and Others v Saldanha Bay Municipality (14190/2010) [2011] ZAWCHC 253 (6 June 2011)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

14190/2010

Judge

Cloete

The court found that the tariff for capital contributions set out in resolutions R43/12/07 and R35/6/07 was rescinded by resolution R105/1-10, rendering the new tariff of no force and effect. The respondent's continued levying of contributions under the rescinded tariff was unlawful. The court held that, while no private law trust duties arise, the municipality's statutory obligation of openness and transparency requires it to account to the applicants for sums overpaid under the unlawful tariff. The applicants are entitled to an account of all overpayments made in respect of capital contribu…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Municipal Tariffs
• Capital Contributions
• Local Government Powers
• Rezoning And Subdivision
• Fiduciary Duties Of Municipalities