Hulett v Administrator, Cape, and Another

JurisdictionSouth Africa
JudgeKotze J and Kannemeyer J
Judgment Date30 March 1967
Citation1967 (2) SA 483 (E)
Hearing Date02 March 1967
CourtEastern Cape Division

Kotzé, J.:

I have had the benefit of reading the judgment of my Brother KANNEMEYER with which I fully agree. I should like to add the following brief observation.

H It seems clear that prior to 9th August, 1965, a premature decision was arrived at by the Executive Committee to allocate the name 'Cape St. Francis' to the township established by the second respondent. This feature could conceivably, in the absence of any explanation, lead to an inference that the first respondent's second decision was arrived at with a closed mind. Such an inference can, in my view, not be drawn as the first respondent has stated on oath that the entire matter was fully reconsidered by the Executive Committee in the light of all

Kannemeyer J

representations submitted. There is no basis for rejecting this statement and no conclusion can therefore be drawn that the matter entrusted to the first respondent's discretion was not considered in good faith.

A The application is, accordingly, dismissed with costs.

Judgment

Kannemeyer, J.:

The applicant, L. B. E. Hulett, is the owner of certain immovable property situated on the coast between the mouth of the Kromme Rivier and Cape St. Francis, on which he has developed a township and B holiday resort. The registered name of this township is 'Sea Vista'. The circumstances under which this name was assigned to this township can be summarised as follows. When preliminary investigations took place in connection with its establishment, it was referred to as a proposed township at Kromme Bay and, in correspondence the first C respondent referred to it as the proposed 'Kromme Bay Township'. There is, however, nothing to suggest that the applicant ever intended to give this name to the township and it would appear that, at this stage, the reference to Kromme Bay was for the purpose of identification of the situation of the township only; this factor has, however, certain significance, as will be mentioned later. On 9th June, 1958, formal D application was made for the establishment of the township and in the application the name of the township was given as 'Cape St. Francis Township.' This name was again used when the notice of the application was published as required by sec. 11 (5) of the Townships Ordinance, 33 of 1934, and there was no objection lodged in respect thereof. However, E the first respondent, before finally approving of the name, submitted it for the consideration of the Postmaster-General who intimated that it was not acceptable, as

'it is the name of a postal agency at the Cape St. Francis Lighthouse - at present temporarily closed'.

In view of this, the first respondent declined to approve the name and, F after various alternatives had been suggested, 'Sea Vista' was accepted and this name was duly registered as the township's name in pursuance of regs. 14 and 28 (1) promulgated under the Deeds Registries Act, 47 of 1937. The applicant was disappointed by the refusal to approve the name 'Cape St. Francis', but says that he 'reluctantly accepted' the alternative name 'Sea Vista' and decided to re-apply for the name 'Cape G St. Francis' when the postal agency was moved from the lighthouse as he anticipated it would be. No administrative machinery would appear to be available for the change of name, once given and registered, on the mere application of the township owner, but it is clear that the applicant at all times hoped to achieve this object. The reason for the applicant's H determination to acquire the name 'Cape St. Francis' arises from the fact that, before the establishment of the township, he had developed a fishing camp on his land to which he had given this name and which he had advertised extensively with, apparently, considerable success. It is clear that the applicant, through his own energies, opened up this area of the coastline and made it accessible to the general public. Disappointed though he was, he accepted the position and registered his township under the name 'Sea Vista'.

Notwithstanding the official name under which the township...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Van der Westhuizen NO v United Democratic Front
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...Onderwys (OVS) 1963 (3) SA 287 (O); S v Naicker 1965 (2) SA 919 (N); Baron v Sherren 1966 (3) SA 460 (R); Hulett v Administrator, Cape 1967 (2) SA 483 (E); Welkom Bottling Co (Pty) Ltd v Belfast Mineral Waters (OFS) (Pty) Ltd 1967 (3) SA 45 (O); Administrator, D Transvaal, and The Firs Inve......
  • Van der Westhuizen NO v United Democratic Front
    • South Africa
    • Appellate Division
    • November 30, 1988
    ...Onderwys (OVS) 1963 (3) SA 287 (O); S v Naicker 1965 (2) SA 919 (N); Baron v Sherren 1966 (3) SA 460 (R); Hulett v Administrator, Cape 1967 (2) SA 483 (E); Welkom Bottling Co (Pty) Ltd v Belfast Mineral Waters (OFS) (Pty) Ltd 1967 (3) SA 45 (O); Administrator, D Transvaal, and The Firs Inve......
  • Ex parte Minister van Justisie: In re S v Concalves
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...on the grounds of unreasonableness as such. See Baron v Sherren, N.O., 1966 (3) SA 460; Hulett v Administrator, Cape and Another, 1967 (2) SA 483; Johannesburg City Council v Administrator, Transvaal and Mayofis, 1971 (1) SA 87; Administrateur van S.W.A. en 'n E Ander v Pieters, 1973 (1) SA......
  • Van der Vyver v Netherlands Insurance Co of SA Ltd
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...die hele situasie was vandat die eiser op die voertuig beland het totdat hy daarvan afgeval het en dat sy skuld met betrekking tot die 1967 (2) SA p483 Boshoff skade dus oorwegend was. Op die keper beskou egter het ons die posisie dat die eiser, nadat hy vir Ozen met die vrou betrap het, de......
4 cases
  • Van der Westhuizen NO v United Democratic Front
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...Onderwys (OVS) 1963 (3) SA 287 (O); S v Naicker 1965 (2) SA 919 (N); Baron v Sherren 1966 (3) SA 460 (R); Hulett v Administrator, Cape 1967 (2) SA 483 (E); Welkom Bottling Co (Pty) Ltd v Belfast Mineral Waters (OFS) (Pty) Ltd 1967 (3) SA 45 (O); Administrator, D Transvaal, and The Firs Inve......
  • Van der Westhuizen NO v United Democratic Front
    • South Africa
    • Appellate Division
    • November 30, 1988
    ...Onderwys (OVS) 1963 (3) SA 287 (O); S v Naicker 1965 (2) SA 919 (N); Baron v Sherren 1966 (3) SA 460 (R); Hulett v Administrator, Cape 1967 (2) SA 483 (E); Welkom Bottling Co (Pty) Ltd v Belfast Mineral Waters (OFS) (Pty) Ltd 1967 (3) SA 45 (O); Administrator, D Transvaal, and The Firs Inve......
  • Ex parte Minister van Justisie: In re S v Concalves
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...on the grounds of unreasonableness as such. See Baron v Sherren, N.O., 1966 (3) SA 460; Hulett v Administrator, Cape and Another, 1967 (2) SA 483; Johannesburg City Council v Administrator, Transvaal and Mayofis, 1971 (1) SA 87; Administrateur van S.W.A. en 'n E Ander v Pieters, 1973 (1) SA......
  • Van der Vyver v Netherlands Insurance Co of SA Ltd
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...die hele situasie was vandat die eiser op die voertuig beland het totdat hy daarvan afgeval het en dat sy skuld met betrekking tot die 1967 (2) SA p483 Boshoff skade dus oorwegend was. Op die keper beskou egter het ons die posisie dat die eiser, nadat hy vir Ozen met die vrou betrap het, de......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT