Broadway Mansions (Pty) Ltd v Pretoria City Council

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Centlivres CJ, Van Den Heever JA and Hoexter JA
• Judgment Date: 10 December 1954
• Citation: 1955 (1) SA 517 (A)
• Hearing Date: 25 November 1954
• Court: Appellate Division

B Van den Heever, J.A.:

During 1949 respondent consulted Professor Halford, a town planning expert, in regard to the further planning of Pretoria with special reference to the central area of the city, where traffic congestion had become a serious problem. The Professor's report was completed in September, 1949. It recommended, inter alia, three major projects, 'the Government Boulevard Scheme', 'the 12 feet building C line' and 'the Ring Road Undertaking'. The first envisaged an avenue of government buildings leading from Paul Kruger Street up to the Union Buildings and contemplated the elimination of privately owned buildings along its course. The second proposed the imposition of a 12 feet building line in the central area of the city. The third, with which we D are more directly concerned, contemplated a wide, double 'ring road' around the central portion of the city. It is an ambitious project designed to avoid level crossings of streets and to relieve traffic congestion.

The respondent approved the plan in principle. To execute the first it had recourse to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Townships and E Town-planning Ordinance, 1931. The scheme was ultimately approved and proclaimed on the 14th May, 1952. The same course was followed in regard to the second scheme which, after protracted preliminaries has now reached the stage of abiding the Administrator's approval and proclamation. No steps were taken, however, to realise the 'ring road' F project under the provisions of Ord. 11 of 1931; but about two years ago the respondent had the proposed route surveyed and plans for the project were prepared. Respondent alleges that the main obstacle to the realisation of the 'ring road' project was the restriction placed by the Union Government upon capital expenditure by local authorities on undertakings of this kind, a restriction which was considerably eased on G the 29th June, 1954, and permitted the respondent to proceed with the 'ring road' project.

Appellant is the owner of land situate right in the path of the proposed 'ring road'. On this property there was until recently a building comprising six shops and some flats. About July, 1953, it decided upon a rebuilding scheme and took the steps necessary in order to have its H plans approved and to obtain a permit for the demolition of the existing building. The permit was granted on the 27th August, 1954 and on the day following appellant commenced the demolition, which when these proceedings commenced, was practically complete. The plans for the new building were finally approved on the 20th September, 1954 and respondent maintains that it was in law

Van den Heever JA

bound to approve them as there was no valid ground for withholding approval.

Thereupon negotiations for the purchase of appellant's property ensued between appellant and the respondent's officers and, upon these proving futile, the town clerk on the 18th September, 1954, formally notified appellant of respondent's intention to acquire the appellant's A aforementioned property by compulsory purchase under the provisions of sec. 6 (1) of the Municipalities Powers of Expropriation Ordinance, 64 of 1903.

If the notice is valid the appellant will find itself in an invidious position. Under the provisions of sec. 12 of Ord. 64 of 1903 as amended B by Ord. 13 of 1952 the value of the property for the purpose of expropriation 'shall be the value at the...