{"query_echo":{"q":"","filters":{"geography":["Dr. Pixley Ka Isaka Seme Local Municipality"]},"warnings":[{"code":"facet_value_not_in_vocabulary","message":"Value 'Dr. Pixley Ka Isaka Seme Local Municipality' for facet 'geography' is not in the controlled vocabulary."}]},"total":{"value":2,"relation":"eq"},"page":1,"page_size":20,"self":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/api/v1/search?geography=Dr.+Pixley+Ka+Isaka+Seme+Local+Municipality","stability":"beta","ai_marking":{"digital_source_type":{"uri":"http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/digitalsourcetype/trainedAlgorithmicMedia","name":"Created using Generative AI"},"notice":"Summary and key insights are generated using artificial intelligence."},"results":[{"id":"cer-000463","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/cer-000463","title":"YZERMYN 96 REGISTRATION DIVISION HT: PORTION 1, MPUMALANGA PROVINCE APPLICATION FOR A CHANGE IN LAND USE NOTICE OF APPEAL","publisher":{"name":"Centre for Environmental Rights","organization":"centre-for-environmental-rights"},"document_type":"statement","language":"en","date_published":"2019-01-08","source_url":"https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Annexure-F.pdf?x21779","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","geography_discussed"],"summary":{"text":"A notice of appeal filed on 8 January 2019 by a mining company against a decision by the Dr. Pixley Ka Isaka Seme Local Municipality's Joint Municipal Planning Tribunal. The Tribunal had dismissed the company's land use application on the grounds of lack of locus standi. The appellant argues that the decision ignored national law (SPLUMA) and violated procedural fairness under PAJA.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-000463#summary","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},"key_insights":[{"text":"The land development applicant is appealing a decision by the Joint Municipal Planning Tribunal of the Dr. Pixley Ka Isaka Seme Local Municipality, passed on 14 November 2018 and conveyed on 18 December 2018, which removed their application for a change in land use from the list of matters to be considered.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-000463#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},{"text":"The Joint Municipal Planning Tribunal based its decision on the finding that the land development applicant lacked proper locus standi, specifically that they were not authorised to act for the land owner under Section 90(1)(2) of the municipal by-law.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-000463#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},{"text":"The appellant argues that the Tribunal erred by applying Section 90(2) of the municipal by-law instead of Section 45(1)(c) of the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, 2013 (SPLUMA), which allows a person to whom land has been made available for development by an Organ of State to submit an application.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-000463#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},{"text":"The appeal claims the Tribunal's action was procedurally unfair and in contravention of the Promotion of the Administrative Justice Act 2000 (PAJA) because the decision was made without a hearing or an opportunity for the applicant to present arguments.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-000463#insight-4","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},{"text":"The land development applicant is a mining company holding a valid mining right issued by the National Department of Mineral Resources under the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA).","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-000463#insight-5","date_modified":"2026-08-17"}],"climate_tags":[],"geography_discussed":["Volksrust"],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":[]},{"id":"cer-001281","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/cer-001281","title":"NOTICE TO OPPOSE AN APPEAL IN TERMS OF SECTION 144 OF THE CHIEF ALBERT LUTHULI, DIPALESENG, DR PIXLEY KA ISAKA SEME, LEKWA, MKHONDO AND MSUKALIGWA MUNICIPAL BY-LAW ON SPATIAL PLANNING AND LAND USE MANAGEMENT, 2016 (the LUM By-law”)","publisher":{"name":"Centre for Environmental Rights","organization":"centre-for-environmental-rights"},"document_type":"statement","language":"en","date_published":null,"source_url":"https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Practice-Group-Notice-to-Oppose.pdf?x21779","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights"],"summary":{"text":"This document is a notice to oppose appeals lodged by the Centre for Environmental Rights (representing Earth Life Africa Johannesburg and others) and Werksmans Attorneys (representing the Pikkie Uys Trust and others). The appeals challenge a land development application for Portion 1 of the Farm Yzermyn 96 IT in Mpumalanga Province, which was approved by the Gert Sibande District Joint Municipal Planning Tribunal (JMPT) on 28 May 2019. The Second Respondent, Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd, argues that it has the legal standing (locus standi) to apply for land development as a holder of a mining right granted by the National Department of Mineral Resources.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-001281#summary","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},"key_insights":[{"text":"Atha-Africa Ventures (Pty) Ltd (the Second Respondent) opposes the appeals filed on 2 July 2019 and 3 July 2019, seeking the full dismissal of the relief sought by the First and Second Appellants and the upholding of the JMPT resolution dated 28 May 2019.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-001281#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},{"text":"The Second Respondent argues that it possesses the necessary locus standi to lodge a land development application under Section 45(1) of the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, 2013 (SPLUMA), asserting that the authorization of the registered land owner is not required for its application.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-001281#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},{"text":"The Second Respondent justifies its status as a valid land development applicant by stating that a Mining Right was granted for the property by the National Department of Mineral Resources, which constitutes a real right in the land and makes the land available for development by an organ of state.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-001281#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},{"text":"The Second Respondent contends that all objections to the application were recorded by the Municipality and answered in writing, and that the JMPT considered these before its decision, noting that the LUM By-Law does not require objectors to be invited to a hearing.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-001281#insight-4","date_modified":"2026-08-17"}],"climate_tags":[],"geography_discussed":[],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":[]}]}