| dc.date.accessioned | 2019-03-08T05:38:50Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2019-03-08T05:38:50Z | |
| dc.identifier.citation | [2019] ZACC 33 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 2019 (11) BCLR 1299 (CC) | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/36600 | |
| dc.title | Dykema v Malebane and Another (South African Association of Consulting Professional Planners as Amicus Curiae) | en_US |
| dc.identifier.casenumber | CCT332/18 | |
| dc.date.hearing | 28 May 2019 | |
| dc.contributor.judge | Froneman J | |
| dc.date.judgment | 10 September 2019 | |
| dc.link.judgment | https://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/36600/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%2010%20September%202019.pdf?sequence=45&isAllowed=y | |
| dc.concourt.synopsis | Chapters V and VI of the Development Facilitation Act 67 of 1995 — suspension of declaration of invalidity — expiration of suspension without remedial legislation being passed — legal consequences. Status of applications submitted but not finalised before the expiration of suspension — valid and “pending” in terms of the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act 16 of 2013 —fall to be disposed of in the manner prescribed by section 60 | |
| dc.concourt.casehistory | Application for leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the SCA: Mabelane v Dykema and Another (1054/2017) [2018] ZASCA 174; [2019] 1 All SA 316 (SCA) (3 December 2018). See also the earlier judgment of the Pretoria High Court: Dykema v Bela Bela Local Municipality and Another (91319/15) [2017] ZAGPPHC 277 (22 June 2017). |