Johannesburg City Council v Knoetze and Sons

Last updated

In Johannesburg City Council v Knoetze and Sons, an important case in South African law, Trollip J dealt

  1. with the question of whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to grant an interdict to restrain the performance of conduct which, of itself, constitutes a statutory offence, and
  2. with the question of who has locus standi to move the court for an interdict where the court has jurisdiction to grant one.

Trollip J referred firstly to the general principle formulated by Kotze AJA in Madrassa Anjuman Islamia v Johannesburg Municipality , [1] to the following effect:

If it be clear from the language of a statute that the Legislature, in creating an obligation, has confined the party complaining of its non-performance, or suffering from its breach, to a particular remedy, such party is restricted thereto and has no further legal remedy; otherwise the remedy provided by the statute will be cumulative.

After considering the ambit of this general principle and its application to the statute with which he was dealing—it prescribed the payment of certain registration and licence fees for commercial vehicles—Trollip J concluded that the remedies afforded the local authority by the ordinance were such as to negate any suggestion that the local authority could sue civilly to recover unpaid fees.

The judge then proceeded to consider whether the statute also impliedly precluded the local authority from seeking an interdict to prevent the owner of the vehicles in question from using them until the arrear fees had been paid and the vehicles properly registered. The ordinance in question contained a provision making it an offence to operate a vehicle on a public road unless it was duly licensed.

Trollip J quoted a dictum of Solomon JA in Madrassa case:

To exclude the right of a Court to interfere by way of interdict, where special remedies are provided by statute, might in many instances result in depriving an injured person of the only effective remedy that he has, and it would require a strong case to justify the conclusion that such was the intention of the Legislature. [2]

The judge went on to say,

It is true that the qualification—unless the statute otherwise provides—is not incorporated in the well-known rule laid down by Solomon J (as he then was) in Patz v Greene & Co 1907 TS 427 at 433. That decision has, on that account, been criticised in certain decisions [....] But with respect I think that in Patz v Greene & Co the Court was satisfied that the statute in question had not expressly or by necessary implication excluded the civil remedy of interdict (see at 434-5), and it was therefore primarily concerned with the locus standi of the applicant to apply for the interdict (see the argument at 427). Consequently, the rule there laid down accepted, I think, that the right of interdict was available, and it was directed towards defining the person or class of persons who had locus standi to claim its enforcement. Thus, in the Madrassa case, at 726, the same learned Judge who had announced the rule applied it to determine the locus standi of the applicant [....] In my view, therefore, Patz v Greene Ltd does not add to or conflict with the rule quoted above from [...] the Madrassa case. The case will be referred to again later on the question of the present applicant's locus standi.

Now the ordinance does not exclude, expressly or by necessary implication, the remedy of interdict to enforce observance of s 4(1). That remedy, as pointed out above, is applicable to future or continuing breaches; the statutory remedy of prosecution and punishment under s 4(2) relates to past breaches; and the two can therefore co-exist without any conflict. Consequently the reasoning above for excluding the civil remedy for recovering arrear fees and penalties does not apply. Hence, in my view, future or continuing breaches of s 4(1) can be restrained by interdict. [3]

On the question of whether or not the City Council had locus standi to seek an interdict, Trollip J held that, because the ordinance contained the provision prohibiting persons from operating unlicensed or unregistered vehicles on public roads, and because, in terms of other sections of the ordinance, a portion of licence fees paid by persons residing within the area of a local authority accrue to the local authority, the local authority in question had a sufficient "partial interest" to vest it with locus standi. The judge apparently [4] did not consider the mere prohibition against operation of vehicles without compliance with the duty to register them an insufficient basis upon which to find that the local authority could interdict their unlawful operation.

Related Research Articles

Habeas corpus is a recourse in law through which a person can report an unlawful detention or imprisonment to a court and request that the court order the custodian of the person, usually a prison official, to bring the prisoner to court, to determine whether the detention is lawful.

In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. A party has standing in the following situations:

Nuisance is a common law tort. It means that which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir J. F. Stephen as,

"an act not warranted by law, or an omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all Her Majesty's subjects".

Judicial review is a part of UK constitutional law that enables people to challenge the exercise of power, often by a public body. A person who feels that an exercise of power is unlawful may apply to the Administrative Court for a court to decide whether a decision followed the law. If the court finds the decision unlawful it may have it set aside (quashed) and possibly award damages. A court may impose an injunction upon the public body.

The law of Florida consists of several levels, including constitutional, statutory, and regulatory law, as well as case law and local law. The Florida Statutes form the general statutory law of Florida.

United Kingdom administrative law

United Kingdom administrative law is part of UK constitutional law that is designed through judicial review to hold executive power and public bodies accountable under the law. A person can apply to the High Court to challenge a public body's decision if they have a "sufficient interest", within three months of the grounds of the cause of action becoming known. By contrast, claims against public bodies in tort or contract are usually limited by the Limitation Act 1980 to a period of 6 years. Almost any public body, or private bodies exercising public functions, can be the target of judicial review, including a government department, a local council, any Minister, the Prime Minister, or any other body that is created by law. The only public body whose decisions cannot be reviewed is Parliament, when it passes an Act. Otherwise, a claimant can argue that a public body's decision was unlawful in five main types of case: (1) it exceeded the lawful power of the body, used its power for an improper purpose, or acted unreasonably, (2) it violated a legitimate expectation, (3) failed to exercise relevant and independent judgement, (4) exhibited bias or a conflict of interest, or failed to give a fair hearing, and (5) violated a human right. As a remedy, a claimant can ask for the public body's decisions to be declared void and quashed, or it could ask for an order to make the body do something, or prevent the body from acting unlawfully. A court may also declare the parties' rights and duties, give an injunction, or compensation could also be payable in tort or contract.

Administrative law in Singapore Law of Singapores government agencies

Administrative law in Singapore is a branch of public law that is concerned with the control of governmental powers as exercised through its various administrative agencies. Administrative law requires administrators – ministers, civil servants and public authorities – to act fairly, reasonably and in accordance with the law. Singapore administrative law is largely based on English administrative law, which the nation inherited at independence in 1965.

Illegality in Singapore administrative law Singaporean judicial review doctrine

Illegality is one of the three broad headings of judicial review of administrative action in Singapore, the others being irrationality and procedural impropriety. To avoid acting illegally, an administrative body or public authority must correctly understand the law regulating its power to act and to make decisions, and give effect to it.

Threshold issues in Singapore administrative law Legal requirements to be satisfied to bring cases to the High Court

Threshold issues are legal requirements in Singapore administrative law that must be satisfied by applicants before their claims for judicial review of acts or decisions of public authorities can be dealt with by the High Court. These include showing that they have standing to bring cases, and that the matters are amenable to judicial review and justiciable by the Court.

Remedies in Singapore constitutional law

The remedies available in a Singapore constitutional claim are the prerogative orders – quashing, prohibiting and mandatory orders, and the order for review of detention – and the declaration. As the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore is the supreme law of Singapore, the High Court can hold any law enacted by Parliament, subsidiary legislation issued by a minister, or rules derived from the common law, as well as acts and decisions of public authorities, that are inconsistent with the Constitution to be void. Mandatory orders have the effect of directing authorities to take certain actions, prohibiting orders forbid them from acting, and quashing orders invalidate their acts or decisions. An order for review of detention is sought to direct a party responsible for detaining a person to produce the detainee before the High Court so that the legality of the detention can be established.

Gun laws in North Carolina North Carolinas gun law

Gun laws in North Carolina regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the U.S. state of North Carolina.

Gun laws in Texas Texass gun law

Gun laws in Texas regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the U.S. state of Texas.

<i>Mann v Goldstein</i>

Mann v Goldstein [1968] 1 WLR 1091 is a UK insolvency law case concerning the bringing of a winding up petition when a company is alleged to be unable to repay its debts.

EX-TRTC United Workers Front v Premier, Eastern Cape Province is an important case in South African law, heard and decided in the Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho, on 25 February – 4 June 2009, respectively. T Delport (attorney) appeared for the plaintiffs, and SM Mbenenge SC for the defendants.

Minister of Health and Welfare v Woodcarb (Pty) Ltd and Another is an important case in South African environmental law, heard in the Natal Provincial Division by Hurt J on March 29, 1995, with judgment handed down on December 15, 1995. Counsel for the applicant was CJ Hartzenberg SC ; DA Gordon SC appeared for the respondents. The applicant's attorney was the State Attorney; the respondents' attorneys were Venn, Nemeth & Hart.

Verstappen v Port Edward Town Board and Others is an important case in South African environmental law, heard on September 29, 1993.

The Constitutional litigation in South Africa is an area of the law that deals with the rules and principles concerning constitutional matters. It examines the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal. It considers the rules peculiar to these courts that are relevant to constitutional litigation, such as the admission of an amicus curiae, the duty to raise a constitutional matter as early as possible in proceedings, and the duty to join the relevant organ of state in a case involving a constitutional issue.

Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council of the European Union (2002) C-50/00 P is an EU law case, concerning judicial review in the European Union.

<i>Collins v Minister for Finance</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Collins v Minister for Finance[2016] IESC 73; [2017] 1 ILRM 65; [2017] 3 IR 99, is a reported Irish Supreme Court case in which it was held that the Minister for Finance did not breach his power in issuing promissory notes under the Credit Institutions Act 2008, which was found to be constitutional. Collins' appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court, which concluded that, “a Minister for Finance can spend any amount of money they deem necessary in an emergency without going back to the Dáil and we will be challenging that in the Dáil itself.” The case thus legalised emergency measure to deal with Ireland's financial crisis. This was a case in which "the matters described" were of "national importance."

<i>DB v The Minister for Health</i> Irish Supreme Court case

DB v The Minister for Health[2003] 3 IR 12, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court highlighted that the literal approach should always be used first when it comes to interpreting statutes. The Court also highlighted in this case that the only time the purposive approach should be used is if the literal approach leads to ambiguity or lack of clarity.

References

Notes

  1. ↑ 1917 AD 718 at 727.
  2. ↑ 725.
  3. ↑ 154F.
  4. ↑ This, in Minister of Health v Woodcarb 1996 (3) SA 155 (N) 161F-G, was Hurt J's interpretation of Trollip J's judgment.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.