About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2023
>>
[2023] ZAGPJHC 578
|
|
Idola (Pty) Ltd, Twin City Reality (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others (047352/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 578 (25 May 2023)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 047352/2023
REPORTABLE
OF INTEREST TO OTHER
JUDGES
REVISED
25.05.23
In the matter between:
IDOLA
(PTY) LTD, TWIN CITY REALITY (PTY) LTD
APPLICANT
And
THE
CITY OF JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY
1
ST
RESPONDENT
THE
MUNICIPAL MANAGER OF THE CITY OF
JOHANNESBURG
METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY
2
ND
RESPONDENT
JOHANNESBURG
WATER (SOC)
3RD
RESPONDENT
CITY
POWER (SOC)
4
th
RESPODNENT
Neutral Citation
:
Idola (Pty) Ltd, Twin City Reality (Pty) Ltd v
The City Of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality & 3 Others
(Case No: 047352/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 578 (25 May
2023)
JUDGMENT
WRIGHT J
1.
The
applicant companies seek urgently, orders that water and other
municipal services be restored to a residential building they
own.
There are persons residing there in over 300 households. Some of the
persons impacted by the cutting of services are children.
They need
municipal services daily. Related relief is sought.
2.
The
dispute with the respondents goes back years. Much litigation has
flowed.
3.
On
20 October 2020, by agreement, Siwendu J granted an order that
services be restored immediately and that the respondents be
interdicted from withholding services pending the outcome and
finalization of a meeting
4.
between
the opposing sides. About 60 days seems to have been the time frame
for resolution of the dispute.
5.
Despite
the time frame, the dispute rages on.
6.
According
to the latest account from the Municipality, dated 24 April 2023, the
applicants owe over R6m for services.
7.
It
is essential for applicants, in cases like the present that they ring
fence disputes and continue to pay what is not in dispute,
unless,
possibly, they show that they are in credit.
8.
The
greater dispute cannot be decided now and the applicants do not ask
me to do so.
9.
In
a replying affidavit the applicants say that there are three areas of
dispute, electricity, sewerage and refuse. The applicants
say that
there is a total overpayment of R9 644 646,10 that is, that
they are in credit, as at 1 May 2023. The applicants
provide much
detail.
10.
The question now, where an applicant
seeks a temporary interdict is whether the applicants show a prima
facie right though open
to some doubt, or, put differently, whether
the respondents have cast serious doubt on the applicants’
case.
11.
I
ruled that the matter is urgent as over 300 families, including
children are impacted by the imminent cutting of services.
12.
The applicant’s counsel, during
argument, trimmed significantly the relief now sought. In short,
various prayers were removed
from the present table and the
applicants undertake to keep paying monthly charges.
13.
In
my view, the applicants, who effectively need to provide services to
many persons including children have, at least for present
purposes,
ringfenced sufficiently the relevant areas of dispute.
14.
The respondents cast much doubt on
the exact figures suggested by the applicants. In my view, the
applicants have overcome the hurdle
they face now. For the limited
relief sought, the applicants have shown a prima facie right, even
though open to some doubt.
15.
Under section 28 of the Constitution,
any matter involving children is to be decided bearing in mind that
the interests of children
are paramount.
16.
On
the question of costs, in my view, the Siwendu J order is possibly
open to different interpretations and the greater dispute
is very
much up in the air. Accordingly, the question of costs should be
reserved.
ORDER
1.
The respondents are not to
discontinue municipal services, or if they have discontinued the
services they must immediately restore
them subject to the applicants
paying each month the current charges - that is for May 2023 and
thereafter, being electricity and
water as metered by Protea Metering
or a different contractor appointed by the respondents, rates as per
monthly accounts rendered,
refuse at the rate of R441 per month plus
ordinary notified increases and sewerage at the rate of R30 000
per month - pending
agreement or the final determination of the
disputes by litigation.
2.
The respondents may not terminate any
service unless they give the applicants at least 10 calendar days
written notice.
3.
Costs reserved.
4.
The balance of the relief sought in
Part A is postponed sine die
GC Wright
Judge of the High
Court
Gauteng Division,
Johannesburg
HEARD
: May 2023
DELIVERED
: May 2023
APPEARANCES
:
APPLICANT
Adv
N Nortje
nadia@clubadvocates.co.za
083 645
7014
Instructed
by
Jacques
Classen Inc
072 432
96890
RESPONDENT
for 1;2 and 4
Adv
E Sithole
esithole@law.co.za
Instructed
by
Madlhopa
& Thenga Attorneys
011 442
9045
hugo@madhlopathenga.co.za