Where am I? Fin24.com > Companies

Waterfront in legal mess

Jun 25 2008 22:00 Liesl Peyper

Cape Town - A massive legal battle looms between government and the new owners of the V&A Waterfront if planned legislation about the management of coastal areas goes through.

The legislation, currently being considered by parliament, will mean that Transnet won't be able to honour its contractual responsibilities towards Lexshell - owned by UK-based London & Regional Group, as well as Dubai World and BEE shareholders.

In 2001, before the Waterfront was sold to the consortium, Transnet signed a contract undertaking to reclaim land next to the Waterfront back from the sea.

This apparently included an area of 270 000 square meters - from Green Point lighthouse to Robben Island, extending to Melkbosstrand as well as the land that was reclaimed around the Castle.

Transnet has denied that the whole area will be reclaimed from the sea and has said that it will be limited to areas next to the Waterfront, which includes Granger Bay and the Breakwater residential area. But it couldn't give more details about the development of 270 000 square meters mentioned in the contract.

This emerged at a meeting of the Western Cape's standing committee on social development, where Transnet had to testify about the V&A Waterfront deal, explaining all the terms and its contractual obligations. Transnet has not made details of the contract, which took place in October 2006, known before now.

The agreement with the Waterfront entails that Transnet has to get the necessary governmental approval for reclaiming the land. The reclaimed land would then be handed over to the Waterfront.

Restrictions in the new legislation mean that Transnet won't be able to reclaim the land.

The legal representative of Lexshell, Hendrik Kotzé of the law firm Jan S. de Villiers, has said that this will have "very serious economic implications".

"We have solid contractual rights and expect parliament to honour them," he said.

- Die Burger

Share this page

Add your comment

(No bad language or hate speech, please)

Comments Order

SECOND BEST TENDER
Jun 27 2008 09:23 Report this comment

Did all the parties tendering for V+A tender for the same volume of land ? .... or did this extra clause only slip in as a personal favour to winning bidder - or a way of getting a massive refund - and a fun day for the lawyers

james
Jun 26 2008 10:57 Report this comment

An interesting article - one wonders how large projects utilising expensive big lawyer firms can manage to get such basic things worded in such a manner as to allow for this type of confusion. Liesl clearly has the area wrong but I would love to see what the actual wording is of the area in question and what is in actual dispute.

Barry
Jun 26 2008 09:57 Report this comment

To Rocket Scientist, you hit the nail on the head, how could she even for a second think that they would take all that land back, what then "Robbin Island internation habour" sorry one rubber duck at a time please sir...... Moron.

Rocket Scientist
Jun 26 2008 09:34 Report this comment

Are journalists unable to do even basic math? Does Liesl Peyper have even grade 5 maths? 270 00 square meters is an area approximately 500m by 500m. The area from Green Point to Robben Island to Melkbos is more than 50 square KILOMETERS, ie 50 MILLION square meters. No wonder there's a skills shortage in our country if people can't even do basic math and think for themselves.

JO
Jun 26 2008 09:33 Report this comment

I really checked the date to ascertain whether this was not some kind of April Fool's joke. Are we South Africans, collectively, such idiots that we could pay lawyers to peruse contracts and not spot the loopholes? Are we so enamoured of "investment" that we would even enter into such contracts? There was a great deal of misgiving about this sale but popular opinion was ignored. Seems the public were correct.

Mick
Jun 26 2008 09:31 Report this comment

Sorry James, I bought that hill TWO years ago... From a chap named Zoomer or something.

james
Jun 26 2008 09:10 Report this comment

I am from Bhongo-Bhongo and last year I bought a hill called Table Mountain to erect a casino because they told me it has a nice view. I expect parliament to honor this deal and change the law to allow this.

TaurusaurusRex
Jun 26 2008 08:36 Report this comment

Or more realistically, it was most likely economically motivated with a goal of further expanding the Waterfront and essentially, Cape Town itself, in a move to greatly develop the city and bolster it's success with the use of the newly-claimed land. I can only wonder if it would happen and how thorough the work would be if it went ahead.


Your name
Email
Comment	(500 characters remaining)
	Please enter the text below(Case sensitive)


If you can see the following field, please ignore it, as it is used to verify that you are human.

	Disclaimer Fin24.com encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of users published on Fin24.com are therefore their own and do not represent the views of Fin24.com. All posts are monitored by Fin24.com's editors and grossly derogatory posts will be deleted. The Fin24.com editorial team will delete your comment should you post abusive comments, use vulgar language or make discriminatory observations.