Greys Marine Hout Bay (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Public Works and Others

The appellants were long‑standing tenants and users of state‑owned quayside property at Hout Bay harbour, operating fish‑processing, yacht club and boat‑building businesses. An undeveloped paved area of the quayside (Lot 86, later extended to Lot 86A) had historically been left open and was used by tenants and the public for access, manoeuvring and parking. The Minister of Public Works, exercising powers under the Disposal of State Land Act 48 of 1961, approved the leasing of Lot 86A to Bluefin Holdings (Pty) Ltd, a company established by historically disadvantaged women, for the development of a fish‑processing facility and restaurant. The appellants opposed the lease, contending that the development would cause congestion and impede access, and applied to review and set aside the Minister’s decision, alleging lack of consultation, procedural unfairness under PAJA, irrationality, and non‑compliance with environmental and planning legislation.

The appeal was dismissed. The decision of the Cape High Court refusing to review and set aside the Minister’s decision, and lifting the interim interdict, was confirmed.

This is a leading South African administrative‑law decision clarifying that the disposal or letting of state property by the executive constitutes administrative action under PAJA. It is particularly significant for its analysis of when procedural‑fairness obligations arise, confirming that only decisions that materially and adversely affect rights or legitimate expectations trigger s 3 of PAJA. The case is frequently cited for distinguishing between implementation of policy and policy formulation, and for its treatment of legitimate expectations.