Ethekwini Municipality v Admed Investments CC and Others (2604/2012)
Ethekwini Municipality v Admed Investments CC and Others (2604/2012) [2013] ZAKZDHC 27 (8 May 2013)
The court found that the applicant was entitled to relief as the first respondent had erected an advertising sign and supporting structures without authorisation, in contravention of municipal bylaws and national legislation. The first respondent's constitutional challenge was not properly before the court due to persistent and deliberate non-compliance with rule 16A(1), which is a peremptory procedural requirement. The explanation for the late filing of the rule 16A notice was neither valid nor bona fide, and condonation was refused. The applicant's own late filing of its answering/replying…
Source excerpt
- Municipal Bylaws
- Third Party Advertising
- Constitutional Compliance
- Rule 16a Notice
- Condonation
- Commercial Speech