Automated Summary
Key Facts
The City of Tshwane issued four certificates to DEXALINX (PTY) LTD under the Tshwane Land Use Management By-law, 2016, confirming approval for submitting final building plans. The applicant relied on these certificates to register titles and proceed with development. The City later unilaterally invalidated the certificates without court review, claiming the Legal Department, not the Planning Department, had authority to issue them. The Court ruled this reversal unlawful, affirming the certificates' validity and ordering the City to process subsequent applications (sections 13, 24, 28) and update its system to facilitate approvals. The applicant faces R7 million in damages from tenant price reductions due to delays and risk of project collapse from investor withdrawal.
Issues
- The primary issue is whether the City of Tshwane can unilaterally revoke its own administrative decisions (section 16(10) certificates) without seeking court review, despite the applicant relying on these certificates to proceed with subsequent development approvals and registrations. The judgment emphasizes that even if the certificates were issued by the wrong department, the City must follow proper legal processes to set them aside, as per constitutional principles of legality and due process.
- The applicant requested the court to compel the City to process its subsequent applications for corrections and exemptions under sections 13, 24, and 28 of the Tshwane Land Use Management By-law. The City halted these applications, claiming the certificates were invalid, but the court found this refusal unlawful and granted mandamus to ensure compliance within specified timelines.
- The applicant also sought an order to compel the City's Land Use Department to update its computerised system and initiate a linking process with the Building Plans Department. This is necessary to enable the final stages of development approval, as the City's inaction based on invalidating the certificates has stalled the process.
Holdings
- The court mandated the respondent to take all administrative steps necessary to process the remaining Town Planning Process.
- The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs, including the costs of two counsel, for the urgent application.
- The court ordered the respondent to process the applicant's approved applications for the properties under sections 13 and 23 of the By-law within two weeks of this order.
- The court directed the respondent to update its computer system to link the Land Use Scheme Department with the Building Plans Department, enabling approval of building plans as per section 28(11) of the By-law, to be completed within a month of the order.
- The court declared that the respondent's decision dated 7 December 2022, regarding the proposed townships of Peach Tree Extensions 21-25, is valid and binding under the Tshwane Land Use Management By-law, 2016.
Remedies
- The Court declares that the respondent's decision, dated 7 December 2022, regarding the proposed townships of Peach Tree Extensions 21-25 is valid and binding under the Tshwane Land Use Management By-law.
- The respondent is liable for the costs of the application, including the costs of two counsel, as the applicant was substantially successful in asserting its fundamental right to fair administrative action.
- The respondent must update its computerised system and establish a linking process between the Land Use Scheme Department and the Building Plans Department to enable approved building plans under section 28(11) of the By-law within a month of the order.
- The respondent is directed to process the applicant's approved/issued applications for the properties under sections 13 and 23 of the By-law within two weeks of the court order.
- The respondent is ordered to take all administrative steps required to process the remaining Town Planning Process following the validation of the initial decision.
Legal Principles
Administrative decisions cannot be disregarded without a formal court review. The principle of rule of law requires the state to follow due process, ensuring affected parties are heard before reversing decisions. This is reinforced by Constitutional Court cases like Kirland, which emphasize that government must act properly to uphold constitutional scrutiny of power.
Precedent Name
- Tasima I (Pty) Limited
- State Information Technology Agency SOC Limited v Gijima Holdings (Pty) Limited
- Khumalo v Member of the Executive Council for Education
- City of Cape Town v Aurecon South Africa (Pty) Limited
- Kirland Investments (Pty) Ltd
Cited Statute
- Uniform Rules of Court
- Tshwane Land Use Management By-law, 2016
Judge Name
Irene de Vos
Passage Text
- Administrative decisions may not simply be ignored without recourse to a court of law. Even when the state is acting on the side of angels and wishes to correct its own error, it cannot take a short-cut. It must apply to Court to review the decision – after having followed a fair procedure. This principle is clear and longstanding.
- The City's position is legally impermissible. Its decision to issue the certificates stands until reviewed and set aside by a court of law. Unless then, they exist, in fact, and cannot simply be overlooked.
- The Court considers the issue of costs... It is appropriate that the applicant enlisted the assistance of two counsel in this matter and that the City be ordered to pay these costs.