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
>>
2022
>>
[2022] ZAGPJHC 973
|
|
City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Specitrim (Pty) Ltd and Others (2021/42636) [2022] ZAGPJHC 973 (7 December 2022)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case
no.
: 2021/42636
REPORTABLE:
NO
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
REVISED.
In
the matter between:
THE
CITY OF JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN
MUNICIPALITY
Appellant
And
SPECITRIM
(PTY)
LTD
First Respondent
EDMANET
(PTY)
LTD
Second Respondent
NOSKOP
1 (PTY) LTD
Third Respondent
UNLOCKED
PROPERTIES 23 (PTY) LTD
Fourth Respondent
UNLOCKED
PROPERTIES 5 (PTY)
LTD
Fifth Respondent
LIMOWARE
(PTY)
LTD
Sixth Respondent
LISACRAFT
(PTY)
LTD
Seventh Respondent
Coram:
Dlamini J
Date
of hearing:
12 October 2022 – in a ‘virtual Hearing’ during a
videoconference on Microsoft Teams digital platform.
Date
of delivery of Judgment: 07 December 2022
This
Judgment is deemed to have been delivered electronically by
circulation to the parties’ representatives via email and
shall
be uploaded onto the caselines system.
JUDGMENT
[LEAVE
TO APPEAL]
DLAMINI
J
[1]
This is an application for leave to appeal
an order that I handed down on 18 January 2022.
[2]
The appellant is the City of Johannesburg
Metropolitan Municipality (CoJ).
[3]
The respondents are the owners of various
immovable properties falling within the municipal jurisdiction of the
CoJ, the appellant
in its capacity as the Local Governing
Municipality.
[4]
The numb of the issue is whether the
appellant has correctly charged the respondents using the correct
tariff for services the CoJ
delivered to the respondents.
[5]
The effect of my order was that the
appellants are directed to engage and interrogate the respondent's
various municipal accounts
to ensure that the respondents have been
correctly billed.
[6]
The test for granting leave to appeal is
now a higher one.
[7]
The trial court may now only grant leave to
appeal if it is of the opinion that the appeal would have a realistic
chance of success
and not may have a reasonable prospect of success.
The legislator’s use of the would in section 17(1)(a)(i) of the
Superior
Court Act imposes a most stringent and vigorous threshold.
[8]
This
concept was captured thus by the court in
Member
of the Executive
Council
of Health Eastern Cape v Mikhita
and
another
[1]
where the court held that a court may now only grant leave to appeal
if it is of the opinion that the appeal would have a realistic
chance
of success not may have a reasonable chance of success. A mere
possibility of success or even an arguable case is not enough.
[9]
Having read the applicant's reasons to
appeal and heard both Counsels during argument, I am of the view that
no court will come
to a different conclusion that the one that I have
reached.
[10] No other Court would
give a contrary decision from the order which I granted on 18
January 2022.
In all the above
circumstances the appllant has failed to make out its case.
ORDER
1.
The application for leave to appeal is
dismissed with costs.
DLAMINI
J
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Date of
hearing:
12 October 2022
Delivered:
07 December 2022
For
the Appellant:
Adv Emmanuel Sithole
Email:
esithole@law.co.za
Instructed
by:
Mr Hugo Baloyi (Madlopa & Thenga Inc.)
Email:
hugo@madlopathenga.co.za
For
the Respondents
:
Adv T Paige-Green
Email:
tpaigegr@clubadvocates.co.za
Instructed
by:
Mr Graig Green (Schindler attorneys)
Email:
Green@schindlers.co.za
[1]
1221/2015
[2016] ZASCA 176
(25 NOVEMBER 2016 at 16)