CCT102/11

[2012] ZACC 8

2012 (7) BCLR 712 (CC)

Jafta J

12 April 2012

http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3659

Application for leave to appeal against the judgment of the SCA: Louw NO and Others v Swartland Municipality [2011] ZASCA 142. See also earlier Western Cape High Court judgment: Swartland Municipality v Louw NO and Others 2010 (5) SA 314 (WCC) and related CC judgment: Maccsand v City of Cape Town and Others [2012] ZACC 7.

This case was heard together with Maccsand v City of Cape Town and Others (Chamber of Mines and Agri South Africa as Amici Curiae) CCT 103/11, as both cases dealt with whether an entity granted a mining right in terms of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 (MPRDA), which is national law, is obliged in addition to obtain authorization in terms of the Land Use Planning Ordinance 15 of 1985 (LUPO), which is provincial law, and the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA). Government argued that the statutes were in conflict, and that MPRDA took precedence over LUPO, thus rendering compliance with LUPO requirements unnecessary. The Court held that the MPRDA and LUPO served different purposes, and that there was no conflict between them. Each sphere of government was exercising power allocated to it by the Constitution and regulated by the relevant legislation. It is permissible for one sphere of government to take a decision the implementation of which may not take place until consent is granted by another sphere, within whose area of jurisdiction the decision is to be executed. Judgment: Jafta J (unanimous).