Reflect-All 1025 CC and Others v Member of the Executive Council for Public Transport, Roads and Works, Gauteng Provincial Government and Another

The applicants were owners of more than twenty properties in Gauteng affected by provincial road route determinations and preliminary designs accepted under the former Transvaal Roads Ordinance. With the enactment of the Gauteng Transport Infrastructure Act 8 of 2001, sections 10(1) and 10(3) deemed these historic route determinations and preliminary designs to have been published under the new Act, triggering statutory restrictions on land use. These restrictions limited township establishment, subdivision, rezoning and development within affected areas, significantly reducing the value and development potential of the applicants’ properties. The applicants challenged the constitutionality of these provisions and the associated Provincial Notices, arguing that they amounted to arbitrary deprivation of property, expropriation without compensation, violations of co‑operative governance principles, and unlawful administrative action.

The declaration of constitutional invalidity of section 10(3) by the High Court was not confirmed. The appeal against the constitutionality of section 10(1) was dismissed. Sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the Gauteng Transport Infrastructure Act 8 of 2001 and the associated Provincial Notices were upheld as constitutionally valid.

The case is a leading authority on the distinction between regulatory deprivation and expropriation under section 25 of the Constitution. It confirms that extensive land-use restrictions imposed for public infrastructure planning can be constitutionally permissible and clarifies the application of arbitrariness in property deprivation. It also reinforces limits on the application of PAJA where legislation leaves no administrative discretion.