They also ask for an order calling upon first respondent to amend and/or amplify in certain
respects the terms of reference of the board of investigation appointed by him.
First respondent opposes the relief sought against him and contends:
(i) That applicants are not entitled to an order in respect of the documents because they
do not at this stage to exercise or protect any of their rights:(ii) That the applicants were not entitled to an order compelling him to appoint a board of
investigation because the provisions of s l5 (I) of Act 73 of 1989 are directory and/or
empowering and not peremptory and(iii) that they are accordingly not entitled to an order interdicting them from taking the
relevant rezoning decision pending the finalisation of the investigation to be conducted
by the board appointed by first respondent. They contend that applicants have no right to
have the rezoning decision held in abeyance until the board has conducted its
investigation and made its findings and/or recommendations because so it is contented
there is no obligation on second or third respondent to take such findings or recommenda-
tions into account before making a decision on the rezoning application and in the
circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that they will be any procedural unfairness if
the rezoning decision is made before the board has completed its work.They contend further that applicants have no well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm if
the interim relief is not granted and that, in any event, applicants have not shown, on the
assumption that the interdict sought is of a temporary nature, that the balance of convenience is in
their favour. In this latter regard they contend that applicants have not made out a case that it will
be legally impossible for them to enforce, by way of review the rights to which they lay claim.
Sixth and seventh respondents oppose the interdict sought against second and third respondents
(it being common cause that the granting of such an interdict would adversely affect sixth and
seventh respondents) on the following grounds:
(a) That the order sought amounts to a final interdict which should not be granted because:
(i) Applicants do not have the necessary locus standi;
(ii) They have not shown that they have any right, which is being infringed;
(iii) Even if they have shown such a right, they have not shown any infringement thereof: and
(iv) Even if they have shown all the a foregoing, they have an alternative remedy;
(b) Alternatively, if the interdict sought is in essence a temporary interdict, then the application
should fail because:
(i) They have shown no prima facie right;
(ii) They have failed to indicate any possibility of irreparable harm;
(iii) They have failed to prove that the balance of fairness is in their favour; and
(iv) even if they have shown all the aforegoing, the Court in the exercise of its discretion should