South Africa Case Law

Ulundi Municipality v Mpungose and Others (6551/2020)

Ulundi Municipality v Mpungose and Others (6551/2020) [2025] ZAKZPHC 73 (24 July 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

6551/2020

Judge

Ncube

The court found that the land in question is under the jurisdiction of Ulundi Municipality, as established by statutory instruments and the respondents' own admissions. The Inkosi Mpungose and Traditional Council have no legal interest that would be prejudiced by non-joinder, as the land vests in the municipality. SPLUMA applies to all land, including tribal areas, and empowers the municipality to enforce its land use scheme through the courts. The High Court retains jurisdiction to grant interdicts, notwithstanding the alternative remedy in the Magistrate's Court under the National Building…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Land Rights
• Spatial Planning
• Interdict
• Non Joinder
• Building Regulations

Fono and Another v Port St Johns Municipality (1271/2022)

Fono and Another v Port St Johns Municipality (1271/2022) [2024] ZASCA 161 (22 November 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1271/2022

Judges

Mocumie, Mabindla-Boqwana, Smith, Mjali, Mantame

The SCA set aside a demolition order for unlawful construction, but confirmed that the builder had to regularise the work under SPLUMA and may be ordered to comply.

• Building Regulations
• Spatial Planning
• Municipal By Laws
• Customary Law Vs Municipal Law
• Remedial Orders
• Demolition Orders

Philippi Horticultural Area Food & Farming Campaign and Another v MEC for Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning: Western Cape and Others (16779/17)

Philippi Horticultural Area Food & Farming Campaign and Another v MEC for Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning: Western Cape and Others (16779/17) [2020] ZAWCHC 8; 2020 (3) SA 486 (WCC) (17 February 2020)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

16779/17

Judge

K M Savage

The court found that the Oakland land did not qualify as agricultural land under the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act, as it was not classified for agricultural use only and was situated within the jurisdiction of a municipal council. The 2011 urban edge decision was rendered moot by the adoption of the 2012 CTSDF, which was not challenged, and thus no practical effect would result from reviewing the earlier decision. The environmental authorisation and exemption granted for the Oakland City development were reviewed, with the court holding that relevant considerations regarding the impac…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Environmental Authorisation
• Spatial Planning
• Aquifer Impact Assessment
• Land Use Planning
• Procedural Fairness

Horsell v Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality and Another (EL1636/2016; ECD3936/2016)

Horsell v Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality and Another (EL1636/2016; ECD3936/2016) [2018] ZAECELLC 5 (3 April 2018)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court

Case number

EL1636/2016; ECD3936/2016

Judge

Hartle

The court granted a PAJA review, extended condonation time, and set aside a rezoning because a title-deed restriction remained effective.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Removal Of Restrictive Conditions
• Municipal Land Use Management
• Title Deed Restrictions
• Public Participation
• Spatial Planning

Tronox KZN Sands (Pty) Ltd v KwaZulu-Natal Planning And Development Appeal Tribunal and Others (9645/14)

Tronox KZN Sands (Pty) Ltd v KwaZulu-Natal Planning And Development Appeal Tribunal and Others (9645/14) [2015] ZAKZPHC 42 (3 June 2015)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

9645/14

Judge

Lopes

The court found that section 45 and Chapter 10 of the KwaZulu-Natal Planning and Development Act, 2008, impermissibly interfere with the constitutionally entrenched powers of municipalities by subjecting municipal planning decisions to appeal before a provincially appointed tribunal. This appellate structure usurps municipal autonomy and is indistinguishable from previously invalidated provincial appeal mechanisms. The Constitution allocates municipal planning as an exclusive municipal function, and provincial oversight through appeals is not justified by constitutional provisions supporting…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Planning
• Provincial Interference
• Appeal Tribunal Structure
• Constitutional Invalidity
• Division Of Powers
• Spatial Planning