About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZAGPPHC 438
|
|
Chairpersons Association v Minister of Arts & Culture of the RSA and Others (64910/12) [2015] ZAGPPHC 438 (19 June 2015)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION.
PRETORIA)
CASE NO; 64910/12
DATE: 19 JUNE 2015
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
THE CHAIRPERSONS
ASSOCIATION
...............................................................................
Applicant
And
THE MINISTER OF ARTS & CULTURE
OF THE RSA
........................................
First
Respondent
THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE SOUTH
AFRICAN
...........................................
Second
Respondent
GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES COUNCIL
THE MAKHADO
MUNICIPALITY
........................................................................
Third
Respondent
JUDGMENT
LEGODI J
[1] The issue in this matter is about
the costs of an interlocutory application launched on the 9 September
2014 in terms of which
the applicant wanted the respondents to be
ordered to file a complete record of the decisions sought to be
reviewed in paragraphs
1 and 2 of the notice of motion in the main
application.
[2] The applicant had brought an
application in terms of which it wanted the decision of the first
respondent published as Government
Notice 851 in Government Gazette
34670 on 14 October 2011 to approve the recommendation by the South
African Geographical Names
Council to change the Geographical name of
the town Louis Trichardt to Makhado, be reviewed and set aside.
Secondly, it wanted
the decision rejecting the applicant’s
objecting to the change of the name of the town from Louis Trichardt
to Makhado on
May 2012 be reviewed and set aside.
[3] The record of the decision having
been provided in terms of Rule 53, the applicant informed the
respondents that the record
was not complete. Subsequent to the query
been raised, on the 16 April 2014 the respondents wrote a letter to
the applicant’s
and recorded:
“1. We refer to your letters
dated 13 November 2013 and 21 March 2014.
2. We attach a copy of a letter from
the Minister of Arts and Culture to A Naude dated 10 May 2012, re:
“Publication of name
change of town name: Louis Trichardt to
Makhado as per Government Gazette number 34670 dated 14 October 2011”
3. Please note that all the documents
relevant to the decision ought to be reviewed and set aside that are
in our client’s
possession are included in the record that we
filed on 4 September 2013, save for the above letter of 10 May 2012".
[4] Having not been satisfied with the
response to provide complete record, the applicant launched the
interlocutory application
aforesaid. The respondents opposed the
application and on the 29 October 2014, that is, a day before the
hearing of the interlocutory
application, filed the answering
affidavits in both the main and interlocutory applications.
[5] In the main application, the
respondents conceded to the review of its decision to change the name
Louis Trichardt to Makhado.
The concession was made as the
respondents were not able to provide or produce documents showing
consultative process which preceded
the decision, including minutes
of meetings held as part of consultative process thereof. An order to
this effect with costs was
made on the 30 October 2014, and therefore
effectively disposed of the main application.
[6] The respondents however declined to
tender costs for the interlocutory application and as a result the
application was postponed.
The applicant in the course filed its
replying affidavit and dealt mainly with prayer 2 of its main
application which reads:
"2. That the First Respondents
rejection of the applicant’s objections to the change of the
name of the town from Louis
Trichardt to Makhado on 10 May 2012 be
reviewed and set aside"
[7] Prayer 2 in my view has fallen by
the way side when an order was made on the 30 October 2014, reviewing
and setting aside the
decision to change the name Louis Trichardt to
Makhado. It was therefore not necessary to pursue whatever contention
the applicant
might have had with regard to prayer 2 quoted above.
Therefore, the filing of the replying affidavit after the 30 October
2014
was unnecessary. For this, the applicant should not be entitled
to any costs occasioned by the filing of the replying affidavit.
[8] However, with regards to the
launching of the interlocutory application, the respondents should
have tendered costs when concession
on the main application was made.
Reliance on the letter of the 16 April 2014 quoted in paragraphs 3 of
this judgment is unhelpful
to the respondents. In the letter it is
not stated that the documents required to constitute a complete
record, did not exist,
as it has now been conceded. What the letter
of the 16 April 2014 suggests is that the information or documents
required have already
been provided. The issue was clarified for the
first time in the answering affidavit filed on the 29 October 2014.
The applicant
was therefore entitled to proceed with its
interlocutory application on costs when the respondents failed to
make a tender for
costs. The respondents should therefore be held
liable for the costs except those occasioned by the filing of the
replying affidavit.
9.1 The first respondent is hereby
ordered to pay the costs of the interlocutory application and such
costs to exclude costs occasioned
by the filing of the replying
affidavit.
M F LEGODI JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
HEARD ON: 08 JUNE 2015
For the Applicant: ADV. M D DU PREEZ
SC.
INSTRUCTED BY: COXWELL STEYN VISE &
NAUDE
C/O SANET DE LANGE INC.
Nr 1 Ox Street Cnr Ox and Brooks
Streets Menlopark, PRETORIA TEL: 012 362 3970 REF: S de Lange/Sa4913
For the First Respondent: ADV. Z M
NAVSA
Instructed bv: CHEADLE THOMPSON &
HAYSOM INC
C/O HACK STRUPEL & ROSS
2nd Floor, Standard Bank Chambers
Church Square
PRETORIA
TEL: 012 325 4185
REF: Ms J Pretorius/RS 7405
For the 2nd Respondent: THE STATE
ATTORNEY
Salu Building
255 Francis Baard Street
PRETORIA
TEL: 012 209 1630
REF: 9316/12/222