[MEDIA SUMMARY] Tembu Convenience Centre CC & another v City of Johannesburg & others

The first appellant operated a service station business on the north-west corner of the intersection between Mooki Street and the Soweto Highway. During 2008-2009, the first respondent (City of Johannesburg) created dedicated bus lanes in Mooki Street for its Rea Vaya buses. The same number of lanes continued to exist, but in each direction one inner lane was reserved exclusively for buses. Rumbling blocks or crash barriers separated outer mixed-traffic lanes from the inner bus lanes, and a constructed median island separated the opposing bus lanes from each other. These works prevented mixed traffic travelling westerly on Mooki Street from making a right turn across oncoming traffic to reach the service station. Similarly, traffic entering Mooki Street from side roads to the south could not travel across and turn right towards the service station. Vehicles wishing to reach the service station had to travel about 500m further west and use a traffic circle to turn back onto Mooki Street in an easterly direction. The appellants claimed damages under s 67(4) of the Local Government Ordinance 17 of 1939 (Gauteng).

• Whether the creation of dedicated bus lanes constituted a partial closure of Mooki Street within the meaning of s 67 of the Local Government Ordinance 17 of 1939 (Gauteng)
• Whether the appellants were entitled to claim damages under s 67(4) of the Ordinance for reduced access to their service station business

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg judgment which had dismissed the appellants' action for damages in terms of s 67(4) of the Local Government Ordinance 17 of 1939 (Gauteng).

A street can only be said to be partially closed within the meaning of s 67 of the Local Government Ordinance 17 of 1939 (Gauteng) if a part of the street permanently ceases to be available for use by all traffic. The dedication of a bus lane for exclusive use by certain vehicles (such as BRT buses) does not constitute a partial closure of a street, as that portion of the street remains open for use by authorized traffic. Traffic management measures that regulate or restrict which categories of vehicles may use particular lanes are matters of traffic flow management and do not involve street closures, even if implemented through physical barriers such as rumbling blocks or crash barriers.

The judgment notes that the dedication of bus lanes can be achieved through various means including traffic signs, painted lines, or physical barriers. While these different methods may have varying practical effects on traffic flow, they are all equally recognized as traffic management measures rather than street closures. The court's reasoning implicitly recognizes the legitimacy and importance of municipalities implementing public transport infrastructure improvements, even where these may have incidental economic effects on adjacent businesses by altering traffic patterns and accessibility.

This case establishes important principles regarding the interpretation of 'street closure' under local government legislation. It clarifies that traffic management measures, including the creation of dedicated bus lanes for public transport systems, do not constitute street closures merely because they restrict access for certain categories of traffic. The judgment is significant for urban planning and the development of public transport infrastructure, particularly Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems like Rea Vaya, as it confirms that municipalities can implement such traffic management measures without incurring liability for damages to affected businesses under street closure provisions. The case balances the interests of private business owners against municipal authority to manage traffic flow and develop public transport infrastructure in the public interest.