South Africa Case Law

Botha En Ander v Lid van die Uitvoerende Raad: Plaaslike Regering en Behuising: Vrystaat Provinsie En Anders (R182/07)

Botha En Ander v Lid van die Uitvoerende Raad: Plaaslike Regering en Behuising: Vrystaat Provinsie En Anders (R182/07) [2009] ZAFSHC 64 (25 May 2009)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

R182/07

Judges

Kruger R, Mocumie R

Review of rezoning and removal-of-restrictions approval for Erf 6720 dismissed; court found no procedural unfairness or irrationality.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Removal Of Restrictions Act
• Town Planning Scheme Amendment
• Municipal Practice
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Rezoning

De Leeuw and Others v MEC for Local Government and Housing Free State and Others (3099/2004)

De Leeuw and Others v MEC for Local Government and Housing Free State and Others (3099/2004) [2005] ZAFSHC 4 (10 March 2005)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3099/2004

Judges

C.H.G. Van der Merwe, A.P. Beckley

The court found that the applicants failed to establish a sufficient case for review and setting aside of the first respondent's decision. The mere fact that the Town Council's recommendation was not followed does not constitute a ground for review, as the first respondent retains discretion. The four substantive reasons provided by the first respondent—confusion over building height, excessive coverage, lack of a specific traffic impact study, and public interest concerns—were found to be rational and objectively justifiable. The court held that the decision was neither irrational nor unreas…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Town Planning Scheme Amendment
• Rationality Review
• Public Interest
• Procedural Fairness

Stands 5/1 Wierda Valley (Pty) Ltd and Another v Town Council of Sandton (126/1992)

Stands 5/1 Wierda Valley (Pty) Ltd and Another v Town Council of Sandton (126/1992) [1993] ZASCA 141; 1994 (1) SA 333 (AD); [1994] 1 All SA 411 (A) (27 September 1993)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

126/1992

Judges

Joubert, Van Heerden, Nestadt, Goldstone, Howie

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the phrase 'development contribution' in section 2(3) of the Removal of Restrictions Act 84 of 1967 is not limited to a tax but includes any contribution relating to development payable under provincial town-planning law, including engineering contributions under section 63 of the 1986 Ordinance. The court found that the respondent complied with the requirements of section 63(1) by sending the directives to the address provided in the rezoning application, as the local authority was not notified of any change in ownership or address. The directives contai…

Source excerpt

• Removal Of Restrictive Conditions
• Development Contributions
• Town Planning Scheme Amendment
• Interpretation Of Statutes