Booysen and Another v City of Cape Town and Others

The first and second applicants are sisters. The third respondent is their nephew, and the fourth respondent is his wife. The dispute concerns an immovable property in Manenberg, Cape Town, owned by the City of Cape Town. The applicants sought to review the City's decision to lease (and potentially sell) the property to the third and fourth respondents. The property was previously registered in the name of the applicants' late sister as a tenant. After her death in April 2017, the applicants expected the tenancy to be transferred to them as 'beneficiaries'. However, the City, applying its Unlawful Occupation Policy, regularised ('normalised') the third respondent's tenancy because he was an unlawful occupant who had moved in prior to 1 March 2006 and met the eligibility criteria. The first applicant was not part of the original household when the late sister was registered as a tenant in 2000, and the second applicant never lived on the property. A lease was concluded between the City and the third and fourth respondents with an effective date of 8 April 2019. The applicants learned of the impugned decision by at least 24 October 2018 but only launched the review application on 21 October 2022, without seeking condonation for the delay or an extension under section 9 of PAJA.

• Whether the applicants' review application was brought within the time limits prescribed by section 7(1) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA)
• Whether the interests of justice required an extension of the 180-day period under section 9 of PAJA in the absence of a condonation application
• Whether the City's decision to conclude a lease with the third and fourth respondents constituted procedurally unfair administrative action under PAJA
• Whether the applicants had any right or entitlement to lease or own the property as 'beneficiaries'

The application was dismissed. Each party was ordered to pay their own costs.

Where a review application under PAJA is brought more than 180 days after the applicant became aware of the administrative action, the delay is per se unreasonable. The court has no authority to entertain the review unless the interests of justice require an extension under section 9 of PAJA. The applicant must furnish a full and reasonable explanation for the entire duration of the delay in the founding papers; failure to do so is fatal. Additionally, under PAJA, a litigant seeking to review administrative action must identify with sufficient clarity both the facts and the legal basis of the cause of action, including the specific procedural irregularity relied upon, and cannot merely make vague allegations of procedural unfairness.

The court expressed great sympathy for the first applicant but noted that sympathy cannot override the legal position where no evidence supported her claim.

This case reinforces the strict application of the 180-day time limit in section 7(1) of PAJA and the principles from OUTA and Camps Bay Ratepayers regarding the per se unreasonableness of delays exceeding 180 days. It underscores that an applicant must seek condonation and provide a full explanation for the delay in their founding papers. The case also illustrates the application of municipal housing policies — particularly the City of Cape Town's Unlawful Occupation Policy — in determining rights to public housing stock and the limited role of a reviewing court in substituting administrative decisions.