Show simple item record

dc.date.accessioned 2017-04-08T17:16:59Z
dc.date.available 2017-04-08T17:16:59Z
dc.date.created 2013-09-16 en
dc.identifier.citation [2014] ZACC 24
dc.identifier.citation 2014 (6) SA 592 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation 2014 (11) BCLR 1310 (CC)
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3736
dc.title Turnbull-Jackson v Hibiscus Coast Municipality and Others (Ethekwini Municipality as Amicus Curiae) en
dc.title.alternative CCT104/13 en
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT104/13 en
dc.date.hearing 4 February 2014
dc.contributor.judge Madlanga J Majority judgment
dc.contributor.judge Froneman J separate judgment
dc.date.judgment 11 September 2014
dc.link.judgment http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/3736/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%20%28416%20Kb%29-22323.pdf?sequence=9&isAllowed=y
dc.concourt.synopsis An application for leave to appeal concerning the extent to which lower courts are required to follow Constitutional Court holdings. Pearl Star Investments planned to build apartments. Mr Turnbull-Jackson, owner of a neighbouring property, opposed the planned development. The High Court followed a Supreme Court of Appeal precedent (True Motives 84 (Pty) Ltd v Madhi and Another [2009] ZASCA 4; 2009 (4) SA 153 (SCA); 2009 (7) BCLR 712 (SCA)), where the Supreme Court of Appeal failed to follow the Constitutional Court’s precedent in Walele v City of Cape Town and Others [2008] ZACC 11; 2008 (6) SA 129 (CC); 2008 (11) BCLR 1067 (CC). The Court in Walele held that a local authority could not approve building plans unless it was satisfied that the proposed building would not trigger certain enumerated disqualifying factors. The Court in this case held that Walele was pivotal to the determination of issues in True Motives, and that all lower courts, including the Supreme Court of Appeal, are bound to follow decisions of the Constitutional Court. The appeal was dismissed. In a separate concurrence, it was held that the Constitutional Court had clarified the scope of Walele in Camps Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association and Another v Harrison and Another [2010] ZACC 19; 2011 (4) SA 42 (CC); 2011 (2) BCLR 121 (CC) and there was therefore no need to deal with the conflict between Walele and True Motives. Majority: Madlanga J (Moseneke ACJ, Skweyiya ADCJ, Dambuza AJ, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Majiedt AJ and Zondo J concurring) Separate concurrence: Froneman J (Cameron J and Van der Westhuizen J concurring)
dc.concourt.casehistory Application for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Pietermaritzburg High Court: Turnbull-Jackson v Hibiscus Coast Municipality and Others (7929/2009) [2012] ZAKZPHC 63 (26 September 2012).


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ConCourt Collections


Browse

My Account