The decision in Wary Holdings (Pty) - PULP
The decision in Wary Holdings (Pty) - PULP
The decision in Wary Holdings (Pty) - PULP
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
446 <strong>Wary</strong> Hold<strong>in</strong>gs (<strong>Pty</strong>) Ltd v Stalwo (<strong>Pty</strong>) Ltd and Another<br />
Address<strong>in</strong>g directly the far-reach<strong>in</strong>g implication of the expansive<br />
def<strong>in</strong>ition of ‘municipal plann<strong>in</strong>g’ over all land use matters, the judge<br />
wrote:<br />
<strong>The</strong> fear that agricultural land will disappear if the <strong>in</strong>terpretation<br />
contended for <strong>in</strong> this judgment is accepted is wholly unjustified. <strong>The</strong><br />
idea is based on the misplaced notion that the only way <strong>in</strong> which<br />
agriculture is to be developed and food made more readily available<br />
would be to preserve the power of the M<strong>in</strong>ister to approve each and<br />
every sale and each and every subdivision of agricultural land. This<br />
thesis overstates the importance and competence of the executive head<br />
and m<strong>in</strong>imises the role, importance and ability of municipal structures,<br />
the prov<strong>in</strong>cial legislature as well as the national legislature. 59<br />
As <strong>in</strong>timated above, the judge’s argument for the extension of local<br />
powers over all land-use <strong>decision</strong>s is based on two questionable<br />
premises. First, is it an overstatement of ‘the importance and<br />
competence of the [national] executive head’ to approve each and<br />
every sale <strong>in</strong> order to protect agriculture? Arguably, a prov<strong>in</strong>ce may<br />
pass compet<strong>in</strong>g legislation giv<strong>in</strong>g the MEC responsible for agriculture<br />
the power to approve agricultural subdivisions. <strong>The</strong> matter is then<br />
settled <strong>in</strong> terms of section 146 of the Constitution on the basis of<br />
whether or not the preservation of agricultural land should be<br />
approached from a national perspective. <strong>The</strong> envisaged new Act on<br />
the matter may well allocate this responsibility to the prov<strong>in</strong>ces. <strong>The</strong><br />
rub of the matter is that agriculture is a national/prov<strong>in</strong>cial<br />
concurrent competence. Second, is the preservation of the M<strong>in</strong>ister’s<br />
power unconstitutionally m<strong>in</strong>imis<strong>in</strong>g ‘the role, importance and ability<br />
of municipal structures’? On my argument that subdivision of<br />
agricultural land deals with agriculture, the short answer must be that<br />
it does not affect the role of municipalities because it is not their<br />
competence. Because it is not their competence, municipalities<br />
simply do not have (and should not have acquired) the capacity to<br />
make <strong>in</strong>formed and appropriate <strong>decision</strong>s <strong>in</strong> this field.<br />
Because the judge subsumed any land use <strong>decision</strong> under the wide<br />
umbrella of municipal plann<strong>in</strong>g, the impact of such a view would<br />
dramatically <strong>in</strong>crease local government’s competences beyond the<br />
functional areas listed <strong>in</strong> Schedules 4B and 5B, for example, the<br />
zon<strong>in</strong>g or rezon<strong>in</strong>g of conservation areas. As this was a m<strong>in</strong>ority<br />
judgment, the future of agricultural land is still <strong>in</strong> the hands of the<br />
national government. It should be noted that the Court must soon<br />
pronounce on the def<strong>in</strong>ition of ‘municipal plann<strong>in</strong>g’ after the SCA <strong>in</strong><br />
City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Gauteng<br />
Development Tribunal and Others 60 <strong>in</strong>validated certa<strong>in</strong> provision of<br />
59<br />
Para 139.<br />
60 [2009] ZASCA 106 (22 September 2009).