Drift Supersand (Pty) Ltd v Mogale City Local Municipality and Another

The second respondent applied in 2006 to Mogale City Local Municipality to establish a township (Greengate Extension 24) on land situated close to property owned by the appellant, Drift Supersand (Pty) Ltd, where open-cast mining and quarrying operations were conducted. Although statutory notices were published, they did not come to the appellant’s attention. Once the appellant became aware of the proposal in 2007, it lodged detailed objections based on safety, environmental impact, and incompatibility with nearby quarrying activities. The municipality failed to respond to these objections, later incorrectly reported that no objections had been received, and approved the township application in 2012 without affording the appellant a hearing or referring the matter to a municipal tribunal, despite representations that this would occur. The appellant sought judicial review of the approval.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The municipality’s approval of the township establishment granted on or about 28 August 2012 was reviewed and set aside. The respondents were ordered jointly and severally to pay the appellant’s costs, including the costs of two counsel. The second respondent’s cross-appeal was dismissed with costs.

The case affirms that nearby landowners have standing to challenge township and land-use approvals that may adversely affect their rights or legitimate interests. It reinforces the requirement of procedural fairness under PAJA, including the duty to consider objections and honour legitimate expectations of a hearing. The judgment also clarifies that parties excluded from an administrative process are not required to exhaust internal remedies before approaching a court.