South Africa Case Law

Baforegile Trading Enterprise and Another v City of Mbombela (4614/21)

Baforegile Trading Enterprise and Another v City of Mbombela (4614/21) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 38 (14 May 2025)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

4614/21

Judge

L. Coetzee

The Court found that the First Applicant's claim of improper service was contradicted by the sheriff's return, which confirmed service at the subject property central to the dispute. The Applicant failed to provide a credible explanation for not receiving notice. Alleged non-disclosure of rezoning applications was irrelevant, as two applications related to unrelated properties and the third was not supported by the municipality. The Applicant did not establish that any procedural irregularity or material non-disclosure existed that would have influenced the outcome. The founding papers were i…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Service Of Process
• Municipal Zoning
• Spatial Planning And Land Use Management
• Default Judgment
• Internal Remedies

Neospace (Pty) Ltd v F and J Engelbrecht Familie Bellegings (Pty) Ltd and Others (03843/2024)

Neospace (Pty) Ltd v F and J Engelbrecht Familie Bellegings (Pty) Ltd and Others (03843/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 55 (27 January 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

03843/2024

Judge

Mahalelo

The High Court dismissed Neospace’s application for leave to appeal, finding the interim order was not appealable and that no reasonable prospects of success existed.

• Interim Interdict
• Appealability Of Interim Orders
• Spatial Planning And Land Use Management
• Building Regulations
• Costs Award
• Leave To Appeal Threshold

Sandton Crowne Properties (Pty) Ltd v Municipal Manager City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality Others (2024/059416)

Sandton Crowne Properties (Pty) Ltd v Municipal Manager City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality Others (2024/059416) [2024] ZAGPJHC 733 (30 July 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/059416

Judge

S Yacoob

The High Court granted an urgent interim interdict stopping construction pending appeal, finding the adjoining owner had not been properly notified of the consent-use application.

• Spatial Planning And Land Use Management
• Interim Interdict
• Notice To Adjoining Property Owners
• Municipal By Laws
• Urgent Application
• Interim-interdict

Harmse and Others v Kamiesberg Local Municipality and Another (CA&R 39/2021 & 1013/2023)

Harmse and Others v Kamiesberg Local Municipality and Another (CA&R 39/2021 & 1013/2023) [2024] ZANCHC 36 (12 April 2024)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA&R 39/2021 & 1013/2023

Judges

Mamosebo, L Lever

The applicants failed to provide a full and reasonable explanation for the delay in bringing their constitutional challenge and review application, resulting in the refusal of condonation. Notices under the NBSA were properly served on the registered owner, Schreuder, and the applicants were not entitled to such notices. The applicants did not meet the requirements for extension under PAJA, as the delay was inordinate and unexplained, and the interests of justice did not warrant an extension. The challenge to the constitutionality of section 21 of the NBSA was dismissed; the section is not un…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Building Regulations
• Condonation
• Constitutional Invalidity
• Spatial Planning And Land Use Management
• Adequate Housing

Govan Mbeki Local Municipality and Another v Glencore Operations South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others (334/2021;338/2021)

Govan Mbeki Local Municipality and Another v Glencore Operations South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others (334/2021;338/2021) [2022] ZASCA 93; [2022] 3 All SA 675 (SCA); 2022 (6) SA 106 (SCA) (17 June 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

334/2021;338/2021

Judges

Maya, Dambuza, Plasket, Musi, Salie-Hlophe

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the impugned municipal by-laws, which imposed an embargo on the registration of transfer of immovable property unless certain municipal requirements were met, exceeded the legislative competence of municipalities under s 156 of the Constitution. The by-laws regulated the transfer and registration of property, a function reserved for national government and governed by the Deeds Registries Act and national legislation. The court found that the by-laws were not authorised by the SPLUMA or the Systems Act, and that they conflicted with s 118 of the Systems A…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Legislative Competence
• Arbitrary Deprivation Of Property
• Spatial Planning And Land Use Management
• By Law Validity
• Conflict With National Legislation
• Deeds Registration