South Africa Case Law

Stellenbosch University v Retolla and Others (LCC63/2021)

Stellenbosch University v Retolla and Others (LCC63/2021) [2022] ZALCC 27; 2024 (1) SA 284 (LCC) (16 August 2022)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC63/2021

Judge

S J Cowen

The court found that the property owned by Stellenbosch University is excluded from the ambit of ESTA because it forms part of the township of Stellenbosch, which was recognised as a township in law at least since 1927 under the Townships Ordinance. The uncontested evidence, including expert opinion and municipal records, established that the property is zoned for education and not designated for agricultural purposes. The legislative history of township development in the Western Cape, including the 1927 and 1934 Townships Ordinances, LUPO, LUPA, and SPLUMA, supports the conclusion that the…

Source excerpt

• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Township Development
• Declaratory Relief
• Eviction Proceedings
• Municipal Planning
• Zoning

PJJ van Vurren Beleggings (Pty) Ltd and Another v Wilds Homeowners Association NPC and Another (89624/2018)

PJJ van Vurren Beleggings (Pty) Ltd and Another v Wilds Homeowners Association NPC and Another (89624/2018) [2022] ZAGPPHC 572 (18 July 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

89624/2018

Judge

BAQWA

The court found that Trumpeter’s Loop and Beisa Street are public roads, as established by the general plans approved by the Surveyor-General and filed in the Deeds Office, and vested in the municipality under section 63 of the Ordinance. The first respondent’s restriction of access was not authorised by the municipality in accordance with the procedures set out in Act 10 of 1998. The Singh decision was distinguished, as the roads in that case were private and part of the estate, whereas here the roads are not part of the individual properties and have not been converted to private ownership.…

Source excerpt

• Public Road Status
• Access Control
• Municipal Powers
• Township Development
• Security Closure
• Declaratory Relief

City of Tshwane v Uniqon Wonings (20771/2014)

City of Tshwane v Uniqon Wonings (20771/2014) [2015] ZASCA 162; 2016 (2) SA 247 (SCA) (20 November 2015)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

20771/2014

Judges

Lewis, Cachalia, Theron, Wallis, Saldulker

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that rates and taxes are payable by the township owner over the remaining extent of the township as a single entity, not over unsold erven separately. When a township owner sells an erf and applies for a clearance certificate, the municipality must determine the rates and charges payable over the preceding two years in connection with that erf and issue the certificate against payment of that amount. The phrase 'in connection with that property' in s 118(1) of the Systems Act refers to the property to be transferred, not the entire township. The court rejected…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Property Rates Act
• Clearance Certificates
• Interpretation Of Statutes
• Township Development
• Valuation Rolls
• Local Government Municipal Systems Act

South African National Roads Agency Ltd v Numeria Trading Pty Ltd and Others (27873/12)

South African National Roads Agency Ltd v Numeria Trading Pty Ltd and Others (27873/12) [2015] ZAGPPHC 463 (22 June 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

27873/12

Judge

C.P. Rabie

The High Court upheld a non-joinder point in a stormwater dispute, finding the township’s individual owners had to be joined because the relief would affect their property rights.

• Joinder Of Parties
• Stormwater Management
• Proprietary Rights
• Township Development
• Joinder-of-parties
• Stormwater-management

Initiative SA Investments 163 (Pty) Ltd v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Another (16198/2008)

Initiative SA Investments 163 (Pty) Ltd v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Another (16198/2008) [2009] ZAGPPHC 59 (15 May 2009)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

16198/2008

Judge

T J Raulinga

The High Court held that a municipal exemption from bulk electricity contributions had not been lawfully withdrawn, and ordered return of the guarantee.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Municipal Powers
• Bulk Service Contributions
• Township Development
• Declaratory Relief
• Administrative-law

Malan and Another v Ardconnel Investments (Pty) Ltd. (379/86)

Malan and Another v Ardconnel Investments (Pty) Ltd. (379/86) [1987] ZASCA 155; [1988] 2 All SA 128 (A) (2 December 1987)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

379/86

Judges

Joubert, Smalberger, Nestadt, Nicholas, Steyn

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the restrictive title conditions registered against erf 42 are praedial servitudes that enure for the reciprocal benefit of all erven in the township, including the respondent's property. The respondent thus has locus standi to enforce observance of these conditions. The business activities conducted by the second appellant on erf 42, namely the operation of a retail food supply business, constituted an unlawful contravention of Condition B7(a) of the township's title conditions, as the approval granted by the local authority did not override the restrict…

Source excerpt

• Restrictive Title Conditions
• Praedial Servitude
• Township Development
• Locus Standi
• Interdict
• Town Planning Ordinance