Judicial Precedent

Malebane v Dykema

CitationThe official law report citation is not provided in the judgment text and cannot be determined from the media summary alone.

JurisdictionZA

Area of Law

Administrative LawLand Use Planning LawConstitutional Law

Facts of the Case

The case concerned two rival property developers seeking to develop petrol service stations on the same stretch of the M1 highway north of Bela-Bela. The respondent’s application for development approval had been lodged with the Limpopo Development Tribunal and was under consideration on 17 June 2012. On that date, the suspension period of a Constitutional Court order declaring Chapters V and VI of the Development Facilitation Act unconstitutional expired. Despite this, the Tribunal purported to grant the respondent’s application after the expiry of the suspension period, when it no longer had lawful authority. Subsequent Supreme Court of Appeal decisions confirmed that such approvals were invalid. Replacement legislation, the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act 16 of 2013 (SPLUMA), came into operation on 1 July 2015. The respondent argued that his application was still ‘pending’ at that time and thus fell within the transitional provisions of s 60(2)(a) of SPLUMA, obliging the local authority to consider it.

Judicial Outcome

The appeal was upheld. The order declaring that the respondent had a pending application which the local authority was obliged to consider under s 60(2)(a) of SPLUMA was set aside.

Legal Significance

The decision clarifies the meaning of ‘pending’ applications in the context of transitional provisions in SPLUMA and confirms that proceedings cannot remain pending before a body that has lost lawful authority due to constitutional invalidity. It reinforces legal certainty following the invalidation of the Development Facilitation Act framework and limits reliance on invalid administrative decisions.