Mr Albert Dykema lodged a land development application in February 2012 with the Limpopo Development Tribunal under Chapter V of the Development Facilitation Act 67 of 1995 (DFA) to establish a service station in Bela-Bela. The application was lodged during the period in which the Constitutional Court had suspended its declaration of invalidity of Chapters V and VI of the DFA in Gauteng Development Tribunal. Hearings were held before the expiry of the suspension on 17 June 2012, but the Tribunal only approved the application in November 2012, after the suspension had lapsed and before replacement legislation was enacted. The Bela-Bela Local Municipality refused to implement the approval, contending it was invalid. Meanwhile, Mr Malebane applied for similar rights under alternative legislation. Mr Dykema approached the High Court seeking to compel the Municipality to recognise his approval or, alternatively, a declaration that his application was still pending under section 60 of the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act 16 of 2013 (SPLUMA). The High Court granted declaratory relief but the Supreme Court of Appeal overturned it. Mr Dykema then appealed to the Constitutional Court.
Leave to appeal was granted; the appeal was upheld; the Supreme Court of Appeal’s order was set aside; Mr Dykema’s DFA application was declared to be pending under section 60(2)(a) of SPLUMA and must be disposed of in accordance with section 60; each party was ordered to pay its own costs in all courts.
The case clarifies the transitional consequences of suspended declarations of constitutional invalidity and resolves uncertainty arising from Parliament’s failure to enact remedial legislation timeously. It authoritatively interprets section 60 of SPLUMA and protects applicants from prejudice caused by regulatory lacunae. The judgment reinforces a purposive, context-sensitive approach to statutory interpretation and ensures continuity and fairness in municipal planning administration.