23 April 2025
Further work on the Botsmaskop Fynbos Estate has been halted by the Western Cape High Court. Photo from an appendix in court papers.
Most of the parties gearing up for a major legal battle over the controversial Botmaskop luxury residential estate outside Stellenbosch are playing their cards close to their chests. They are refusing to comment on last week’s judgment in the Western Cape High Court that placed an interim interdict on construction of houses on the estate where some plots have been sold, or provisionally sold, for as much as R36.34-million.
The interdict will remain in place pending the full resolution of the case – a review of several environmental authorisations – that could still occur later this year.
But one of the key parties, Botmaskop Fynbos Estate, the owner of the property and developer of the Fijnbosch Residential Estate (usually just called Botmaskop)and the fourth respondent in the case, has taken a different tack.
Shortly after Judge Melanie Holderness delivered her interdict judgment last week, Botmaskop appointed a leading public relations and corporate communications company, Dot Field Consultancy, to assist it. Less than 24 hours later, a statement was issued quoting the developer as “reaffirming its commitment to responsible development with its Botmaskop Estate development”.
“Whilst the company expressed disappointment at the ruling, it emphasised that it fully respects the legal process and the rule of law.
“The interim interdict was granted without prejudice, and the developer will present its full position at the forthcoming review hearing,” the statement reads.
The court application is being brought by the Stellenbosch Interest Group (SIG), a voluntary association of concerned citizens from the area that was established in 1996.
Part A was for an interim interdict, which has now been granted, and Part B will be a full review of several environmental authorisations by the Western Cape government and the Stellenbosch municipality.
Key among these is SIG’s challenge to an amended environmental authorisation (EA) granted on 18 February 2021 by the second respondent in the case, the Director of Development Management in the Western Cape Department of Local Government, Environmental Affairs Development Planning.
In her judgment, Judge Holderness described this decision as “an inexplicable reversal of [the department’s] previous position”.
The political head of the department is MEC Anton Bredell, who is the first respondent in the case.
The third respondent is Stellenbosch Municipality, the local authority in whose jurisdiction the property is situated, whose controversial land swap with the developer is being challenged.
The Botmaskop Homeowners’ Association is the seventh respondent, while the registered owners of individual erven that are part of the development are the eighth to thirty-second respondents. None of these parties opposed the Part A application.
Bredell’s spokesperson Wouter Kriel said in response to an invitation to comment that the MEC had noted the judgment in respect of Part A of the case but could not comment because of the pending litigation. Kriel said Bredell encouraged the parties to approach the court to expedite the hearing.
Stellenbosch Municipality communications manager Stuart Grobbelaar also refused to comment. “As the matter is currently before the courts and therefore sub judice, we are unable to provide any comment at this stage as a respondent.”
Johan van der Merwe, attorney for the SIG, declined to comment on the case but explained the process going forward. The first step would be for the full Record to be finalised, he said.
“It’s legal procedure that, in a review application of this nature, the decision-makers have to file all the documents relevant to the decisions being reviewed. In this case, the decision-makers are the province and the municipality.
“They have filed some very important documents, but not all, so we are waiting for them.”
Once the record had been finalised, the SIG as the applicant in the case would have an opportunity to amend its founding affidavit, and after that the other parties could file further answering affidavits. This was because, to date, all affidavits had been mainly directed towards the interdict (Part A of the application).
“There’s provision in the judgment that the parties may approach the court for ‘further directives to facilitate an expedited review’. When we reach that point, we’ll know what the time frames look like,” Van der Merwe said.
Botmaskop’s statement was issued in the name of the Staytus Collection, described on its website as “a boutique-style developer based in the Western Cape” and part of the Rouxcor Group of Companies.
Botmaskop chief executive Dr Werner Roux is named as a founder partner in, and chief executive of, the Staytus Collection which includes Botmaskop in its property portfolio. But the name Staytus Collection does not feature in court papers.
The statement quotes Roux as saying that Staytus “has complied fully with all statutory and regulatory requirements throughout the Botmaskop Estate Development”.
Before acquiring the property, Staytus had undertaken an extensive due diligence study to confirm the validity and security of all development rights and approvals. Stands within the Botmaskop Estate had been legally transferred to homeowners, with municipal clearances and registered title deeds secured.
“We remain committed to safeguarding the interests of our investors, homeowners, and stakeholders, and to resolving this matter through the appropriate legal channels …
“As the fourth respondent in the matter, Staytus has consistently acted in accordance with good corporate governance and guidance provided by the Department of Environmental Affairs and the Stellenbosch Municipality and remains confident that the legal process will ultimately affirm its compliance with all regulatory and legal requirements.”