True Motives 84 (Pty) Ltd (the appellant) owned Erf 178, Morningside Ext 17. Mohamed Hanif Mahmoed Mahdi (first respondent) owned the adjoining Erf 177. The first respondent applied to the City of Johannesburg (second respondent) for approval of building plans to make extensive alterations to his dwelling, including a structure two and a half storeys high close to the appellant's boundary. The appellant alleged it was not notified of the application and that the alterations would: block sunlight to its property; enable overlooking into its dwelling and recreational areas; be unsightly and objectionable; violate its privacy; and cause substantial derogation in the value of its property (estimated at R500,000 to R1 million). The City approved the plans on 19 June 2005 after the building control officials considered overlooking issues and required remedial measures (screen walls). The appellant sought to declare the approval unlawful and to have it set aside on review. The High Court (Louw AJ) dismissed the application, finding the City had properly considered possible effects on value and was not satisfied derogation would result, and was therefore obliged to approve under s 7(1) of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act 103 of 1977.
The appeal was dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel. The decision of the City of Johannesburg to approve the building plans was upheld.
1. Section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act 103 of 1977 requires a local authority to refuse approval of building plans only if it is positively satisfied that the building will probably or in fact cause one of the statutorily listed harmful consequences (disfigurement, unsightliness, objectionability, value derogation, or danger). The authority is NOT required to be positively satisfied that such consequences will NOT occur before granting approval. If uncertain, and if the plans otherwise comply with the Act, the authority must approve. 2. 'Market value' for purposes of s 7(1)(b)(ii)(aa)(ccc) means the price an informed willing buyer would pay an informed willing seller, taking into account existing zoning, building restrictions, and developmental controls. Derogation from market value occurs only when adverse impacts exceed what such informed parties would have contemplated and factored into the price. 3. A local authority's decision under s 7(1)(b)(ii) is susceptible to review only if the decision-maker failed to apply his or her mind to relevant considerations, took into account irrelevant factors, or reached a conclusion that was irrational or unreasonable on the material available. 4. The ratio decidendi of a judgment consists of those reasons necessary for the decision in the sense that, along the lines actually followed by the court, the result would have been different but for those reasons (applying Schreiner JA in Pretoria City Council v Levinson 1949 (3) SA 305 (A)). 5. The passages in Walele v City of Cape Town 2008 (6) SA 129 (CC) suggesting a different interpretation of s 7(1)(b)(ii) were obiter dicta, not binding on the SCA, because the decision in Walele turned on the absence of material before the decision-maker, not on the proper interpretation of the test for satisfaction under s 7(1)(b)(ii).
Heher JA observed that while building control officers should generally regard compliance with zoning and developmental controls as strong prima facie indication for approval, they must not ignore other factors pointing in a different direction. Local authorities are not obliged to employ professional valuers for every application, but may do so where a real prospect of derogation presents itself. Provided the decision-maker applies his or her mind fairly to reach a rational conclusion, expert valuation is not mandatory. Cameron JA emphasized the practical importance of the distinction in approach, noting that the interpretation adopted would 'free building approvals from many potential statutory challenges, by draining muddy water from the statutory quagmire in which local authorities currently operate.' He stressed the constitutional importance of correctly applying the doctrine of precedent and warned against the Supreme Court of Appeal laying itself open to accusations of illegitimately disregarding or evading Constitutional Court precedents. Scott JA observed that the section as formulated seeks to balance the rights of applicants against neighbouring property owners, and that it favours the applicant for practical reasons: requiring positive satisfaction that no harm would result would necessitate expert valuers for every application, causing inordinate delays and administrative logjams given that major municipalities handle approximately 1500 applications per month. Jafta JA (dissenting) expressed the view that the literal approach defeats the purpose of s 7(1)(b)(ii) and does not comply with s 39(2) of the Constitution, which requires courts to promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights when interpreting legislation. He argued that the protection afforded to neighbouring property owners would be seriously undermined without an obligation on the decision-maker to be satisfied that harmful consequences would not occur. He further argued that this Court is bound by the Constitutional Court's interpretation in Walele and that it is impermissible to decline to follow it on grounds that it is 'wrong'.
This case provides authoritative guidance on the interpretation of section 7 of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act 103 of 1977, clarifying the duties and discretion of local authorities in approving or refusing building plans. It establishes that local authorities are not required to obtain expert valuations for every application or to be positively satisfied that no harm will result; rather, they must refuse approval only if positively satisfied that harmful consequences will probably or certainly occur. The judgment also significantly addresses the doctrine of precedent, particularly the binding effect of Constitutional Court judgments on the Supreme Court of Appeal, and provides important guidance on distinguishing between ratio decidendi and obiter dictum. It clarifies the scope of review of administrative decisions involving evaluative judgments on aesthetic and value-related matters, emphasizing deference to decision-makers who have properly applied their minds. The case balances the property rights of developers against those of neighbouring owners in the context of urban development and town planning regulation.
Explore 5 related cases • Click to navigate