Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii

[1] These review proceedings emanate from the granting of an environmental authorisation by the First Respondent in favour of the Third Respondent pursuant to the application of the Third Respondent for such authority to develop a portion of a farm into residential accommodation. The Applicant, having lodged an appeal against the authorisation that was granted, lodged this application on the basis that the Second Respondent proceeded to revise and replace the original authorisation without having any regard to procedural fairness.

[2] Two preliminary aspects require consideration before embarking on the actual review proceedings:

2.1 Condonation: 

In terms of section 7(1) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 3 of 2000 (PAJA) the Applicant must institute proceedings for judicial review without unreasonable delay and not later than 180 days after the date on which internal remedies were concluded, or the Applicant became aware of the administrative action and the reasons for it or might have reasonably become aware of the action and the reasons.

In the present instance the Applicant has not been furnished with a decision in respect of the appeal lodged on 5 July 2018 and consequently the period of 180 days cannot be said to have begun to run. The Third Respondent does not oppose the condonation application, even if I were to find that such application was necessary.  In my view there is no need for the applicant to even apply for condonation in terms of section 9 of PAJA as no reasons were given.