Plover’s Nest Investments (Pty) Ltd v De Haan and Another

Plover’s Nest Investments (Pty) Ltd owned several erven in Solar Beach, Plettenberg Bay, subject to a registered servitude in favour of a neighbouring property now owned by Mr De Haan. In 1995 the Bitou Local Municipality approved the consolidation and re-subdivision of the erven subject to six conditions, one of which prohibited any building in the servitude area. Due to an error by a municipal official, only two of the six conditions were communicated to Plover’s Nest and the Surveyor-General. Years later, relying on municipal approval, Plover’s Nest constructed extensions, including structures within the servitude area. De Haan applied to the High Court to review and set aside the municipality’s approval of the building plans, arguing that the approval was unlawful and inconsistent with the original subdivision conditions and his servitude rights. The High Court set aside the approval, and Plover’s Nest appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the setting aside of the municipality’s approval of the building plans was upheld.

The case clarifies the distinction between administrative decisions and clerical or communicative acts by officials, confirming that errors in notification do not amount to administrative action under PAJA. It reinforces the principle that valid municipal resolutions remain binding until set aside on review, and that municipalities are obliged to comply with and enforce their own planning decisions and subdivision conditions.