Sedgefield Developer Sues Knysna Municipality for More Than R2.5-Million

• A Sedgefield developer is suing the Knysna municipality for R2.5-million.
• The developer, Sandpiper Nature Reserve, is claiming damages for delays in building a retirement complex.
• Sandpiper says Knysna’s Municipal Planning Tribunal acted “irrationally and vexatiously” in recommending the project be refused.
• The developer is also suing a Sedgefield environmentalist for R5-million for opposing the project.

The developer of a controversial Sedgefield retirement complex, who is suing a local environmentalist for R5-million, is now also claiming damages of R2.557-million from the Knysna Municipality for delaying the project.

The application by the developer, Sandpiper Nature Reserve, to build 52 two-storey and three-story residential units on an ecologically sensitive coastal dune site at Sedgefield was initially approved by the municipality’s planning department in September 2022, but then blocked by Knysna’s Municipal Planning Tribunal.

This was the result of a last-minute appeal against the development, made to the tribunal by local environmentalist Tessa Joubert in September 2023.

Joubert’s appeal was considered by the tribunal during two hearings in February and March 2024, and the tribunal then recommended that the development be refused. In May last year, Sandpiper received a letter from the municipality confirming the tribunal’s unanimous refusal of the application.

But Sandpiper appealed that decision, and its appeal was upheld by the sole appeal authority – then Knysna ANC mayor Aubrey Tsengwa, since ousted and resigned – in September last year.

Sandpiper is now seeking R4,994,570 in damages from Joubert in her personal capacity.

And, in its summons against the municipality filed in the Thembalethu (George) division of the Western Cape High Court on 13 March, Sandpiper is claiming R2,437,500 plus interest. The claim is made up of damages allegedly resulting from six months or increases in building costs – while the company was waiting for the claim to be adjudicated – plus R119,570.90 in costs for having to respond to Joubert’s application.

In its summons, Sandpiper says the damages were incurred solely “as a result of the wrongful actions” of the planning tribunal.

Sandpiper says the members of the tribunal “neglected and/or failed to apply their minds to the nature of the intervention and the merits of the objections as they are legally obligated to do… the tribunal members … breached the legal duties imposed upon them in terms of legislation and failed to apply their minds … and in reaching the conclusion they did, acted irrationally and vexatiously.”

Knysna Municipality spokesman Christopher Bezuidenhout declined to answer any questions about whether Sandpiper’s claim was being opposed.

“Given the litigious nature of the matter, we are unable to provide any comment at this time,” he told GroundUp.

SLAPP suit

Meanwhile, a petition has been launched in support of Joubert, who is widely believed to be the target of a SLAPP suit. The petition also appeals to the Knysna municipality to halt all work on the Sandpiper project, pending a new, independent, environmental impact assessment.

A SLAPP – Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation – suit has been described by the Western Cape High Court as “a meritless or exaggerated lawsuit intended to intimidate civil society advocates, human rights defenders, journalists, academics and individuals as well as organisations acting in the public interest.”

Titled “Stop High-Density Development in Sedgefield’s Coastal Dunes and Support Tessa Joubert”, the petition had garnered 451 signatures by the weekend.

“We, the undersigned — primarily residents and stakeholders of Sedgefield and the broader Knysna Municipality, with support from others who care deeply about protecting this environment — express our firm opposition to the proposed high-density development within the ecologically sensitive coastal dune zone of Sedgefield,” the petition reads. “This development poses significant threats to our unique natural environment, which is integral to our community’s identity and well-being.”

“We stand in solidarity with environmental advocate Tessa Joubert, who is currently facing a R5-million defamation lawsuit from the developer for exercising her lawful right to object to this project … We strongly condemn any effort to suppress public participation in decisions that affect the shared natural heritage of our community … This fragile environment must be protected, not paved over.”

Joubert is also supported by social worker John Clarke, whose work as a justice and peace monitor includes a film series of interviews, about whistle-blowers.

In an interview for this series, Joubert told Clarke that the proposed Sandpiper retirement complex would be a high-density development in a critical biodiversity area, along the dune slack of an unstable primary dune system. Dune slacks are low-lying, often water-filled, depressions or hollows within dune systems.

“It is going to influence the ecological process,” she said. “It just makes no sense to develop a high-density project on a key biodiversity infrastructure. It is an area that needs to be kept pristine and not further fragmented.”

Clarke also approached the law firm acting for Sandpiper, explaining that he was providing advocacy support and a platform for Joubert to air her views, and offering the right of reply.

Richard Sohn, a partner at Sohn & Associates Attorneys, responded to Clarke, confirming that summons had been issued against the Knysna Municipality and denying that either action (against the municipality or Joubert) constituted a SLAPP.

“We have provided you with our view that the action against Joubert has nothing whatsoever to do with an attempt to silence her: our client has no need to do so as its application was successful. It has everything to do with seeking financial compensation for her unreasonable conduct.”

“The action instituted against the Knysna Municipality is also not a SLAPP suit but an action aimed at compensation for the financial losses our client sustained.”

© 2025 GroundUp. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

You may republish this article, so long as you credit the authors and GroundUp, and do not change the text. Please include a link back to the original article.

We put an invisible pixel in the article so that we can count traffic to republishers. All analytics tools are solely on our servers. We do not give our logs to any third party. Logs are deleted after two weeks. We do not use any IP address identifying information except to count regional traffic. We are solely interested in counting hits, not tracking users. If you republish, please do not delete the invisible pixel.