City of Cape Town v Hendricks

The respondents were informal traders operating from large temporary structures erected on City-owned pavements in Mitchells Plain without the City of Cape Town’s consent, in contravention of municipal by-laws. Portions of the structures also encroached on neighbouring private property. On 23 April 2010, a City law enforcement officer issued written compliance notices instructing the respondents to remove the unlawful structures and warning of penalties if they failed to comply. The respondents did not seek authorisation but instead obtained interim interdicts against the City and later launched a review application, arguing that the notices constituted administrative action taken without affording them a prior hearing as required by PAJA.

The appeal was upheld. The order of the court a quo was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the review application.

The case clarifies that municipal compliance or warning notices issued to enforce by-laws are not necessarily administrative action under PAJA. It draws an important distinction between preliminary enforcement steps and reviewable administrative decisions, limiting the scope of PAJA in routine law-enforcement contexts.