Loading PDF...
This document is 3.3 MB. Do you want to load it?
History of this document
03 July 1991 this version
Commenced
27 June 1991
Assented to
Cited documents 0
Documents citing this one 162
Gazette
141Act
9|
Agriculture and Land
·
Environment, Climate and Wildlife
·
Human Rights
·
Infrastructure and Transportation
·
Public administration
|
|
Public administration
|
|
Human Rights
|
|
Labour and Employment
|
|
Uncommenced
Business, Trade and Industry
·
Finance and Money
|
|
Uncommenced
Business, Trade and Industry
·
Finance and Money
|
|
Business, Trade and Industry
|
|
Education
·
Environment, Climate and Wildlife
·
Infrastructure and Transportation
·
International Law
·
Public administration
|
|
Agriculture and Land
·
Environment, Climate and Wildlife
|
By-law
7|
Repealed
Environment, Climate and Wildlife
·
Health and Food Safety
·
Public administration
|
|
Environment, Climate and Wildlife
·
Public administration
|
|
Health and Food Safety
|
|
Business, Trade and Industry
·
Environment, Climate and Wildlife
·
Public administration
|
|
Business, Trade and Industry
|
|
Environment, Climate and Wildlife
·
Public administration
|
|
Repealed
Business, Trade and Industry
·
Communications and Media
·
Environment, Climate and Wildlife
·
Finance and Money
·
Infrastructure and Transportation
·
Public administration
|
Judgment
5|
Reported
Court upheld civil forfeiture under POCA: property was instrumental and forfeiture not disproportionate.
POCA — Chapter 6 civil forfeiture — meaning of "instrumentality of an offence" — property adapted and used over time to facilitate crime — sufficient causal/functional link required; Scope of POCA — Schedule 1 offences may fall within Chapter 6 as amended; Proportionality — forfeiture must not amount to arbitrary deprivation (s 25) or grossly punitive measure — weigh nature/gravity of offence, role of property, penalties already imposed, and public interest; Interaction with provincial statute — parallel criminal or confiscatory regimes are relevant to proportionality; Practicality — partial forfeiture of immovable property is problematic without evidence of feasible subdivision.
|
|
Municipality ordered to enforce planning/building laws; association interdicted from inducing shareholders to withhold company levies.
Town planning and land-use law – unlawful township development – private subdivision and use of agricultural land without township establishment – municipal duty to enforce land-use, zoning and building regulations; Companies/contract law – inducement to breach contractual obligations (withholding levies) – injunctionable conduct; Constitutional law – freedom of expression does not extend to inducing unlawful breaches of contract; Declaratory relief – inappropriate where multiple interested non-parties would be affected; Clean-hands doctrine – court may relax but takes conduct into account.
|
|
Short‑term commercial letting and event use of a Single Residential 1 dwelling is unlawful without municipal consent.
* Municipal and planning law – land use schemes – Saldanha Bay Municipal Integrated Zoning Scheme By‑Law – primary uses versus consent uses; tourism and holiday housing require municipal consent.
* Zoning – Residential Zone 1 – 'dwelling house'/'dwelling unit' construed as residential living accommodation for one household; commercial short‑term letting and events not permitted without consent.
* Ancillary use principle – uses not expressly provided for in scheme are not permitted where scheme provides specific consent categories (Rustenburg jurisprudence).
* Neighbour enforcement – neighbouring owners may obtain interdicts for zoning contraventions; proof of imminent harm and lack of alternative remedy sufficient.
|
|
Reported
Misuse of section 112(1)(a) CPA produced incompetent sentences; five set aside and one sentence amended.
Criminal procedure – s112(1)(a) Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 – summary conviction on bare plea; limits of sentencing under s112(1)(a) – direct imprisonment excluded; ministerial monetary cap (R5,000) on fines. Adjustment of Fines Act 101 of 1991 – applicable to calculate maximum fine where imprisonment maximum prescribed, but not to increase s112(1)(a) cap. Review – incompetent sentences set aside; conviction confirmed but sentence amended where required.
|
|
A s34(3) NEMA enquiry may yield discretionary disgorgement and, under s29(4) ECA, a cost-based commercial-value fine limited to fuel assets.
Environmental law – s22(1) ECA offences – applicability of s34(3) of NEMA – restorative disgorgement and discretionary enquiry; s34(3) triggers: environmental degradation, inability to obtain authorisation or inadequate subsequent authorisation; interpretation of s29(4) “commercial value” – cost-based approach limited to fuel-related assets (pre-2014 legal position); sentencing: combined s34(3) disgorgement and s29(4) fines for deterrence and protection of s24 constitutional rights.
|