Makhado Local Municipality v Makhavu and Another (Appeal) (HCAA36/2024) [2025] ZALMPPHC 214 (10 November 2025)

Case Note

Case Name: Makhado Local Municipality v Paul Makhavhu and Pauline Makhavhu
Citation: HCAA36/2024
Date: 10 November 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its implications regarding the boundaries of judicial discretion within civil proceedings in South Africa. The court's decision to grant orders that were not expressly sought by the parties raises significant questions about the extent to which a court can exercise its discretion to issue orders not grounded in the pleadings. This case is particularly noteworthy as it demonstrates the delicate balance between ensuring justice is served and adhering to principles of procedural fairness and due process in legal proceedings.

The decision further engages with key legal principles concerning the necessity of parties to be aware of the matters they are required to address, reinforcing the importance of clarity in pleadings and the role of the court in adjudicating the issues presented. Given these considerations, the decision has broader implications for future case law on judicial discretion, particularly in application proceedings.

Cases Cited

1. Molusi v Voges N.O. 2016 (3) SA 370 (CC)
2. Fischer v Ramahlele 2014 (4) SA 614 (SCA)
3. Sunker v Mega Websites (Pty) Ltd [2008] 4 All SA 498 (SCA)

Legislation Cited

1. General Law Amendment Act 62 of 1955
2. Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State Act 40 of 2002

Rules of Court Cited

1. Uniform Rules of Court
2. Rule 6(12)(a)

HEADNOTE

Summary

This appeal concerns the validity of two orders issued by the court a quo that were not part of the original application brought by the Respondents. The Appellant contended that the orders were ultra vires as they were not requested in the notice of motion, while the Respondents argued that the orders were a logical extension of the relief sought. The High Court ultimately sided with the Appellant, confirming that the original court exceeded its jurisdiction by making determinations that were not encompassed by the pleadings.

The judgment reinforces the principle that courts should not venture outside the issues defined by the parties in the pleadings. The court emphasized that while judges possess the discretion to ensure justice, they must also respect the procedural rights of the litigants involved.

Key Issues

The key legal issues that the court addressed include:

1. Whether the court a quo had the authority to grant orders not sought in the notice of motion.
2. The implications of procedural fairness in relation to the parties' rights to address issues before the court.
3. The appropriate approach to judicial discretion in the context of maintaining the integrity of legal pleadings and the adversarial system.

Held

The High Court upheld the appeal, ruling that the court a quo erred in granting orders that were not prayed for or discussed during the application proceedings. The court determined that such orders undermined the procedural rights of the parties and expanded the scope of the litigation beyond what was permissible. The appeal thus succeeded, and the Appellant was awarded costs, reflecting the prevailing party's entitlement to recovery of legal expenses.

THE FACTS

The case emerged from an urgent application by the Respondents seeking representational relief concerning their electricity supply from the Makhado Local Municipality. The application included requests for the reconnection of electricity, provision of account breakdowns, and interdicts against disconnection. The Respondents argued that the orders sought were compelling due to misleading billing practices and failures in the municipality's account consolidation processes.

The original court granted a rule nisi on the basis of urgency and subsequently issued a final order, which included provisions not articulated in the Respondents' original application. The Appellant filed an appeal contesting these specific orders, asserting they were made without jurisdiction, complicating the principles of fair notice and opportunity to respond.

THE ISSUES

The central legal question for the court was whether the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing orders that were not part of the pleadings and whether such actions complied with the necessary legal procedures. Additionally, the court considered whether any judicial errors warranted annulment and the implications for the parties involved if the original orders remained in place.

ANALYSIS

The court’s analysis focused on the principle that the notice of motion and accompanying affidavits define the framework of issues for adjudication. Drawing on precedent from both the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal, the court reiterated that it is improper for courts to create or change issues outside of the parties' submissions.

The court carefully reviewed the function of pleadings, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness, ensuring both parties could adequately address and respond to the issues at stake. It was noted that courts do possess an inherent power to endorse reasonable orders that promote justice but must exercise this power within the confines of established procedures.

Ultimately, the court found that the orders granted in the lower court were not only beyond what was sought by the Respondents but also fundamentally altered the litigation landscape without proper input from all parties. This led to the conclusion that respect for due process could not be sacrificed for expediency.

REMEDY

The court ordered the appeal to be upheld, thereby nullifying the specific orders numbered 5 and 6 issued by the court a quo. The court granted the Appellant the costs of the appeal, with the stipulation that these be taxed on Scale B. The decree indicated the necessity for adherence to proper procedural norms and reinforced options for litigation based on established rules.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

This case established several critical legal principles:

1. Judicial Limits on Authority: Courts must adhere to the issues outlined in pleadings and can only consider matters that fall within that scope unless fairness dictates otherwise.

2. Importance of Procedural Fairness: All parties must be afforded an opportunity to address issues that may affect their rights. The court cannot unilaterally modify or expand the scope of discussion.

3. Discretion Within Judicial Actions: While judges are empowered to ensure justice, their actions must not contravene fundamental legal procedures or infringe upon the rights of the litigants involved.

This case serves as a significant reminder of the importance of procedural law in maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.