CCT41/13

[2013] ZACC 39

2014 (1) SA 521 (CC)

2014 (2) BCLR 182 (CC)

Mhlantla J

20 August 2013

20 November 2013

http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3712

Application for leave to appeal against a judgment of the SCA: Lagoonbay Lifestyle Estate (Pty) Ltd v Minister for Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning of the Western Cape and Others (320/12) [2013] ZASCA 13 (15 March 2013). The case was first heard in the Western Cape High Court: Lagoon Bay Lifestyle Estate (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning of the Western Cape and Others (10751/2011) [2011] ZAWCHC 327; [2011] 4 All SA 270 (WCC) (31 August 2011).

Application for leave to appeal concerning a challenge to the validity of the Provincial Minister’s decision to refuse certain rezoning and subdivision applications. The first respondent challenged the Provincial Minister’s refusal on the basis that it was inconsistent with the Cape Land Use Planning Ordinance 15 of 1985 (LUPO), the division of functional competences as set out in Schedules 4 and 5 of the Constitution and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA). Regarding LUPO, the Court held that the Ordinance authorises provincial authorities to determine zoning applications such as the one submitted by the first respondent, but vests the power to decide subdivision applications exclusively in municipal authorities. The Court hold that it could not determine the constitutionality of LUPO’s division of powers between provincial and municipal authorities because that issue had not been pleaded properly. Regarding the PAJA challenges, the Court held, in the light of the Provincial Minister’s broad statutory discretion to approve or refuse applications based on their “desirability”, that there was no basis for interfering with the Provincial Minister’s policy-laden decision. The order of the Supreme Court of Appeal was set aside, the challenge to the rezoning refusal was dismissed and the subdivision application was remitted to the Municipality for reconsideration. Judgment: Mhlantla AJ (unanimous).