CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

Greys Marine Hout Bay (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Public Works and Others

CitationCase No: 347/04 (SCA)
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Administrative LawProperty Law
Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in
Constitutional Law

Facts of the Case

The appellants were tenants on state-owned land at Hout Bay harbour. The first appellant (Greys Marine) operated a fish-processing facility, the second appellant (Hout Bay Yacht Club) had premises there, and the third appellant (C-Craft) built and repaired boats. An undeveloped section of the quayside known as Lot 86 was used by various occupants and visitors for access, passage, parking and launching boats. The Yacht Club had previously leased Lot 86 with an obligation to construct a clubhouse, but due to financial constraints and opposition from the Department of Environmental Affairs, it relinquished its lease in October 2001. The third respondent (Bluefin), a company established by historically disadvantaged women entering the fishing industry, applied to lease Lot 86 and an extended area (together Lot 86A) to construct a fish-processing facility and restaurant. In October 2001, the Minister of Public Works approved the lease to Bluefin, and a formal 20-year lease was concluded in June 2003. The appellants sought to review and set aside the Minister's decision, arguing it would cause traffic congestion, deprive them of parking and access, and constituted unfair administrative action.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the Minister's decision to lease state land constituted administrative action under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA)
  • Whether the appellants' rights or legitimate expectations were materially and adversely affected by the decision
  • Whether the appellants were entitled to procedural fairness, including consultation, before the decision was made
  • Whether the Minister's decision was irrational or arbitrary
  • Whether the proposed development's non-compliance with environmental and planning legislation affected the validity of the Minister's decision to grant the lease

Judicial Outcome

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel. The appellants were held jointly and severally liable for the costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The binding principles established are: (1) The disposal of rights in state property, including the granting of leases, constitutes administrative action under PAJA when made in the exercise of a public power conferred by legislation, in the ordinary course of administering state property, with immediate and direct legal consequences. (2) Section 3(1) of PAJA confers a right to procedural fairness only where administrative action materially and adversely affects rights or legitimate expectations. Rights in this context may include prospective rights but do not encompass mere interests or convenience. (3) A legitimate expectation arises either from an express promise by a public authority or from a regular practice which the claimant can reasonably expect to continue. The mere fact that property has been left undeveloped and available for informal public use does not create a legitimate expectation that this will continue. (4) The granting of a lease over state property does not authorize the lessee to use the property unlawfully or relieve it of obligations under environmental, planning, or other legislation. Non-compliance with such legislation may found an interdict against implementation but does not invalidate the decision to grant the lease itself. (5) The decision to lease property is logically anterior to obtaining consents that may be necessary for its development.

Obiter Dicta

The court made several important observations: (1) While the state enjoys private rights of ownership, those rights are to be asserted within the framework of the Constitution (citing Kyalami Ridge). (2) The court expressed doubt (without deciding) whether interests falling short of prospective rights could ground procedural fairness rights under PAJA, noting that even Bullock's case (which appeared to recognize such interests) might actually have been concerned with legitimate expectations. (3) The court noted that the definition of 'administrative action' in PAJA should be construed consistently with section 33 of the Constitution to avoid constitutional invalidity. (4) The court suggested that PAJA's requirement that administrative action 'adversely affects rights' should not be read literally to characterize administrative action by its effect in particular cases, but rather to convey that administrative action is action that has the capacity to affect legal rights. (5) The court emphasized that determining what constitutes administrative action requires drawing difficult boundaries on a case-by-case basis considering factors including the source and nature of power, subject matter, whether it involves public duty, and how closely it relates to policy formulation versus implementation of legislation. (6) The court noted that administrative action occurs on a continuum with no bright line marking transitions between different forms of public power exercise.

Legal Significance

This case clarifies important principles regarding administrative action in the context of state property disposal. It establishes that: (1) the disposal of state property (granting a lease) constitutes administrative action under PAJA; (2) however, procedural fairness rights under section 3(1) of PAJA are only triggered where rights or legitimate expectations are materially and adversely affected; (3) mere adverse impact on interests or convenience (such as traffic congestion or loss of informal access) does not constitute an adverse effect on rights; (4) legitimate expectations require either express promises or established regular practice; (5) the decision to grant a lease is logically anterior to compliance with environmental and planning legislation, and non-compliance with such legislation may ground an interdict against implementation but not review of the decision itself. The case demonstrates the limited scope for third parties to challenge governmental property disposal decisions absent demonstrable legal rights or established legitimate expectations.

Case relationship graph

Case Network

Explore 6 related cases • Click to navigate

Current Case
Related Case

Cases Cited in This Judgment

  • Ashok Rama Mistry v The Interim National Medical and Dental Council of South Africa and OthersCCT 13/97; 1998 (7) BCLR 880 (CC); 1998 (4) SA 1127 (CC)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that the exercise of public power is subject to inherent constitutional constraint for legality.

  • Lilian Dudley v The City of Cape Town and Ivan TomsCCT 5/04
    Cites

    Cited in relation to whether section 33 of the Constitution has a residual field of operation outside PAJA.

  • Logbro Properties CC v S A Bedderson, NO and OthersCase no: 372/2001
    Cites

    Cited as affording support for the construction that the Minister's decision constituted administrative action.

  • Metro Projects CC and African Unity Developers CC v Klerksdorp Local Municipality and OthersCase no: 602/2002
    Cites

    Cited as affording support for the construction that the Minister's decision constituted administrative action.

Cited By 47 Cases

  • Afriforum NPC v Minister of Tourism and Others; Solidarity Trade Union v Minister of Small Business Development and Others(499/2020 and 498/2020) [2021] ZASCA 121 (22 September 2021)
    Cites

    Cited for the general definition of administrative action as involving the conduct of the bureaucracy in carrying out daily functions of the state with direct…

  • Allpay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social Security Agency and Others(CCT 48/13) [2013] ZACC 42
    Cites

    Cited for the meaning of 'adversely affect the rights' in PAJA section 1, namely that administrative action has the capacity to affect legal rights.

  • AllPay Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Chief Executive Officer of the South African Social Security Agency and Others (No 2)[2014] ZACC 12
    Cites

    Cited on the nature of public power.

  • Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union and Others v Chamber of Mines of South Africa and Others[2017] ZACC 3
    Cites

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.

Minister of Public Works and Others v Kyalami Ridge Environmental Association and Another2001 (3) SA 1151 (CC); 2001 (7) BCLR 652 (CC); Case CCT 55/00
Cites

Cited for the proposition that decisions on land use are logically anterior to obtaining consents, and that absence of consent does not invalidate the decision.

  • Nel v Le Roux NO and OthersCCT 30/95 [delivered on 4 April 1996]
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that administrative action does not extend to the ordinary exercise of judicial powers.

  • Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of SA: In re Ex parte President of RSA2000 (2) SA 674 (CC)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle of legality constraining the exercise of public power.

  • President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v South African Dental Association and Another[2015] ZACC 2
    Cites

    Cited for inherent constitutional constraints on the exercise of public power and the meaning of administrative action.

  • Provincial Government: North West Province and Another v Tsoga Developers CC and Others[2016] ZACC 9
    Follows

    Followed for the proposition that disposal of a right in state property constitutes administrative action; court finds no material distinction from the present…

  • South African Veterinary Council and Another v SzymanskiCase no: 79/2001
    Cites

    Cited with approval for the requirements of legitimate expectation from National Director of Public Prosecutions v Phillips.

  • The Cape Metropolitan Council v Metro Inspection Services Western Cape CC and OthersCase No: 10/99 (SCA), reported at 2001 (4) SA 1013 (SCA)
    Distinguishes

    Distinguished by the court in Logbro Properties CC v Bedderson NO.

  • The National Director of Public Prosecutions v Victor N.O. and Others(756/2023) [2025] ZASCA 31 (31 March 2025)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that PAJA's definition must be construed consistently with section 33 of the Constitution to avoid constitutional invalidity.

  • The Premier, Province of Mpumalanga v Executive Committee of the Association of Governing Bodies of State-Aided Schools: Eastern TransvaalCCT 10/98
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that 'rights' may have a wider connotation in the context of administrative justice.

  • Transnet Limited v Goodman Brothers (Pty) Ltd(373/98) [2000] ZASCA 101 (9 November 2000)
    Cites

    Cited as affording support for the construction that the Minister's decision constituted administrative action.

  • Cited for the proposition that the exercise of public power occurs on a continuum with no bright line marking the transition from one form to another.

  • Association of Regional Magistrates of Southern Africa v President of the Republic of South Africa(CCT 91/12) [2013] ZACC 13
    Cites

    Cited to explain that administrative action is the conduct of the bureaucracy carrying out daily State functions, occurring on a continuum with no bright line…

  • Azeem Hassan Walele v The City of Cape Town(CCT 64/07) [2008] ZACC 11
    Applies

    Applied on the interpretation of the definition of 'administrative action' in PAJA and on the concept of 'rights' in section 3(1) of PAJA.

  • Beweging vir Christelik-Volkseie Onderwys v Minister of Education(308/2011) [2012] ZASCA 45 (29 March 2012)
    Cites

    Court cites this case for the meaning of direct external legal effect in the definition of administrative action under PAJA.

  • Billy Lesedi Masetlha v The President of the Republic of South Africa and Manala Elias Manzini(CCT 01/07) [2007] ZACC 20
    Cites

    Cited for the distinction between executive and administrative action.

  • Brain Gear Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others v Buhle Waste (Pty) Ltd and Another[2024] ZASCA 168 (5 December 2024)
    Cites

    Cited in support of the definition of administrative action under PAJA.

  • Chirwa v Transnet Limited and Others(CCT 78/06) [2007] ZACC 23
    Applies

    Applied for the seven requirements that must be met for conduct to constitute administrative action under PAJA.

  • City of Cape Town v Faizel Hendricks and Mogamat Smith(633/2011) [2011] ZASCA 90 (31 May 2012)
    Applies

    Court applies the principle that administrative action requires direct and immediate consequences and direct or external legal effect; cited for propositions…

  • City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Nambiti Technologies (Pty) Ltd(20580/2014) [2015] ZASCA 167 (26 November 2015)
    Applies

    The court applies and adopts Grey's Marine's consolidated and abbreviated definition of administrative action.

  • Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Medtronic International Trading S.A.R.L(456/2021) [2023] ZASCA 20 (03 March 2023)
    Cites

    Cited to support the principle that whether conduct constitutes administrative action depends primarily on the nature of the power exercised rather than the…

  • Compcare Wellness Medical Scheme v Registrar of Medical Schemes and Others(267/2020) [2020] ZASCA 91 (17 August 2020)
    Cites

    Cited for the definition and requirements of administrative action as defined in the PAJA.

  • Corpclo 2290 cc t/a U-Care v The Registrar of Banks(755/2011) [2012] ZASCA 156 (2 November 2012)
    Applies

    The court applies principles regarding the definition of administrative action under PAJA.

  • Executrix of the Estate of the Late Josephine Terblanche Gouws (Charmaine Celliers N.O.) v Magnificent Mile Trading 30 (Pty) Ltd & others(594/17) [2018] ZASCA 91
    Cites

    Cited for the definition of administrative action in the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000.

  • Giant Concerts CC v Rinaldo Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others(CCT 25/12) [2012] ZACC 28
    Applies

    The court applies this case's consolidated definition of administrative action and its interpretation that 'adversely affects' means action with the capacity…

  • Goldrush Group (Pty) Ltd v North West Gambling Board and Others(648/2021) [2022] ZASCA 164 (28 November 2022)
    Cites

    Cited for the definition of 'adversely affects' in the definition of administrative action, requiring that action affects legal rights and has direct and…

  • Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors and Others v East Rand Member District of Chartered Accountants and Others(945/2022) [2024] ZASCA 114 (22 July 2024)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that administrative action has a direct external legal effect, and that notices without such effect are merely internal administrative…

  • JDJ Properties CC and Another v Umngeni Local Municipality and Another(873/11) [2012] ZASCA 186 (29 November 2012)
    Applies

    Applied for the approach that administrative action is the conduct of the bureaucracy in carrying out the daily functions of the State, and for interpreting…

  • Joseph and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others(CCT 43/09) [2009] ZACC 30
    Applies

    Endorsed the broad interpretation of 'direct, external legal effect' in the definition of administrative action under PAJA.

  • Lynette Mary Roux v Health Professions Council of South Africa and Oliver Michael Powell(786/2010) [2011] ZASCA 135
    Cites

    Cited to summarise administrative action as the conduct of the bureaucracy in carrying out the daily functions of the State with direct and immediate…

  • Maano Water (Pty) Ltd v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited(383/24) [2025] ZASCA 87 (12 June 2025)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that cancellation of a tender before adjudication depends on whether the decision has direct, external legal effect.

  • Minister of Agriculture v Bluelilliesbush Dairy Farming (Pty) Ltd(270/2007) [2008] ZASCA 60
    Cites

    Cited for the interpretation of the definition of 'administrative action' under PAJA.

  • Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Another v Mamasedi(622/2017) [2017] ZASCA 157 (24 November 2017)
    Cites

    Court cites this case for the definitions of 'administrative action' and 'decision' under PAJA.

  • Minister of Defence and Military Veterans v Motau and Others[2014] ZACC 18
    Applies

    Applied to explain the elements of administrative action and the distinction between formulation and execution of policy

  • Minister of Defence and Others v Dunn(131/06) [2007] ZASCA 75
    Cites

    Cited by Nugent JA for the proposition that PAJA's definition of administrative action referring to decisions that 'adversely affect the rights of any person'…

  • Minister of Home Affairs v The Public Protector of the Republic of South Africa(308/2017) [2018] ZASCA 15 (15 March 2018)
    Cites

    Cited for the test of whether rights are adversely affected and whether a decision has an external legal effect, and for the meaning of a decision of an…

  • Mobile Telephone Networks (Pty) Limited v SMI Trading CC(603/2011) [2012] ZASCA 138 (28 September 2012)
    Cites

    Cited for the definition of administrative action and the concept of a 'decision' under PAJA.

  • MultiChoice Support Services (Pty) Ltd v Calvin Electronics t/a Batavia Trading and Another(296/2020) [2021] ZASCA 143
    Cites

    Cited for the definition of administrative action as the conduct of bureaucracy in carrying out daily functions of the State with direct and immediate…

  • National Student Financial Aid Scheme v Samantha Lettie Moloi and Others[2024] ZASCA 66 (03 May 2024)
    Applies

    The case is applied to explain the distinction between executive and administrative action, and to outline the approach to determining whether particular…

  • Nedbank Limited v Mendelow NO(686/12) [2013] ZASCA 98 (5 September 2013)
    Applies

    Applied the dictum that whether conduct constitutes administrative action depends on the nature of the power being exercised rather than the identity of the…

  • PG Group (Pty) Ltd and Others v National Energy Regulator of South Africa and Another(150/2017) [2018] ZASCA 56 (10 May 2018)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that administrative action involves conduct of the bureaucracy having direct and immediate consequences for individuals or groups of…

  • Phodiclinics (Pty) Ltd v Pinehaven Private Hospital (Pty) Ltd(594/2010) [2011] ZASCA 163 (28 September 2011)
    Cites

    Cited by the high court to support the proposition that no right was implicated in an application that was not the appellant's because the granting of…

  • Ramesh Singh & others v The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission & others(822/2018) [2019] ZASCA 69 (30 May 2019)
    Cites

    Court cites this case for its description of the definition of administrative action in PAJA as simultaneously cumbersome, convoluted and narrow in scope.

  • SAAB Grintek Defence (Pty) Ltd v South African Police Service(316/2015) [2016] ZASCA 104 (5 July 2016)
    Considers

    The court considers this case in relation to whether a decision to cancel a tender has a direct, external legal effect on legal rights, but finds it…

  • Sand Hawks (Pty) Ltd and Another v Labonte 5 (Pty) Ltd and Others(190/2023) [2024] ZASCA 122 (16 August 2024)
    Applies

    Court applies the definition of administrative action, emphasizing that at the core is the idea of a decision of an administrative nature taken by a public…

  • South African Local Government Bargaining Council and Others v Municipal Workers Retirement Fund and Others(770/2023) [2025] ZASCA 120 (21 August 2025)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that administrative action is the conduct of the bureaucracy carrying out the daily functions of the State, with direct and immediate…

  • South African National Roads Agency Limited v City of Cape Town(66/2016) [2016] ZASCA 122 (22 September 2016)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that what constitutes administrative action has always eluded complete definition and that whether particular conduct constitutes…

  • State Information Technology Agency SOC Limited v Gijima Holdings (Pty) Ltd(641/2015) [2016] ZASCA 143
    Follows

    Followed for the interpretation that administrative action must have the capacity to affect legal rights and that the requirement of adversely affecting rights…

  • Steenkamp NO v The Provincial Tender Board of the Eastern CapeCase CCT 71/05; 2006 (3) SA 151 (SCA)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that tender awards constitute administrative action.

  • Tellumat (Pty) Ltd v Appeal Board of the Financial Services Board(221/2015) [2015] ZASCA 202 (2 December 2015)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that identifying administrative action requires analysis of the nature of the public power or public function.

  • The Chairman of the State Tender Board v Supersonic Tours (Pty) Ltd(389/07) [2008] ZASCA 56
    Applies

    The court applies this case's principles to determine that the STB's decision constituted an administrative action as defined in PAJA because it was an…

  • The Municipal Manager: The City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others v San Ridge Heights Rental Property (Pty) Ltd(517/2022) [2023] ZASCA 109 (11 July 2023)
    Cites

    Cited to explain the nature of administrative action as primarily depending on the power being exercised rather than the identity of the person exercising it,…

  • The National Energy Regulator of South Africa v Borbet SA (Pty) Ltd(1288/2016) [2017] ZASCA 87
    Cites

    Cited for the general proposition that administrative action is the conduct of the bureaucracy in carrying out the daily functions of the State with direct and…

  • Viking Pony Africa Pumps (Pty) Ltd t/a Tricom Africa v Hidro-Tech Systems (Pty) Ltd(175/09) [2010] ZASCA 23 (25 March 2010)
    Applies

    The court applies the principle from Grey's Marine that administrative action must have the capacity to affect the rights of a person, when determining whether…

  • Viking Pony Africa Pumps (Pty) Ltd t/a Tricom Africa v Hidro-Tech Systems (Pty) Ltd and City of Cape Town(CCT 34/10) [2010] ZACC 21
    Cites

    Cited for defining administrative action as including action that has the capacity to affect legal rights.

  • Explore More Cases

    More Administrative Law cases

    • 1. Tapera Sengweni v The Law Society of Zimbabwe 2. Augustine Runesu Chizikani v The Law Society of ZimbabweHH 706-19, LPDT 8/18 and LPDT 27/18
    • 3M South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(272/09) [2010] ZASCA 20 (23 March 2010)
    • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
    • Aaron Shanje v Ticharwa Murehwa and OthersHH 218-18, HC 9346/17
    • Aaron Zhomwe v BHP Minerals CompanyS.C. 3/2001 (Civil Appeal No. 25/2000)
    • Abahlali baseMjondolo Movement SA and Another v Premier of the Province of KwaZulu-Natal and Others(CCT 12/09) [2009] ZACC 31
    • Abbott v Overstrand Municipality(99/2015) [2016] ZASCA 68
    • Abdul Kadir Yassin Ismail v Registrar General N.O and Minister of Home AffairsHH 519-17, HC 9899/16

    More South Africa cases

    • 3M South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(272/09) [2010] ZASCA 20 (23 March 2010)
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
    • 4-Tune Investments (Pty) Ltd v Kingsgate Body CorporateCSOS 4565/WC/22 (Adjudication Order, 29 November 2023)
    • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
    • 9 on Rydal Vale Court Body Corporate v Pan African Holdings Pty LtdCSOS-4563/KZN/23 (Adjudication Order, 8 November 2023)
    • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another
    2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
  • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97