About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZAFSHC 85
|
|
Ensemble Trading 535 (Pty) Ltd v Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality and Others (4875/2014) [2015] ZAFSHC 85 (30 April 2015)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE
STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Case
No.: 4875/2014
In
the matter between:
ENSEMBLE
TRADING 535 (PTY) LTD
…..........................................................................
Applicant
and
MANGAUNG
METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY
…..............................................
1
st
Respondent
SIBONGILE
MAZIBUKO N.O.
…...............................................................................
2
nd
Respondent
[In
her capacity as Municipal Manager of the
Mangaung
Metropolitan Municipality]
THE
MEMBER OF THE MAYORAL COMMITTEE
OF
THE MANGAUNG METROPOLITAN
MUNICIPALITY:
MUNICIPAL PLANNING
…........................................................
3
rd
Respondent
THE
MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL,
FREE
STATE PROVINCE: DEPARTMENT OF
CO-OPERATIVE
GOVERNANCE, HUMAN
SETTLEMENTS
AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS
….................................................
4
th
Respondent
JUDGMENT
BY:
DAFFUE, J
HEARD
ON:
26 MARCH 2015
DELIVERED
ON:
30 APRIL 2015
I
INTRODUCTION
[1]
This application turns around the process to be followed to amend the
Spatial Development Framework (“SDF”) as component
of the
Integrated Development Plan (“IDP”) of a municipality in
terms of the provisions of section 34(b) of the Municipal
Systems
Act, 32 of 2000 (“the Systems Act”).
II
THE PARTIES
[2]
The applicant is Ensemble Trading 535 (Pty) Ltd. It is
represented by Adv Pienaar, assisted by Adv Rautenbach. First
respondent is the Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality (“the
municipality”), whilst Ms Sibongile Mazibuko, the municipal
manager of the municipality, is cited as second respondent. The
member for municipal planning of the mayoral committee of
the
municipality is cited as third respondent. The application is opposed
by first, second and third respondents who are represented
by Adv
Ncongwane SC. The MEC for Co-operative Governance, Human
Settlement and Traditional Affairs of the Free State Province
is
cited as fourth respondent. Fourth respondent does not oppose
the application. References herein to “respondents”
are
to the first three respondents.
III
THE RELIEF CLAIMED
[3]
Applicant claims the following relief in its notice of motion:
1.
“
That the First Respondent
and/or Second Respondent and/or Third Respondent, in their official
capacities, be ordered to commence
with the process of amending the
First Respondent’s Spatial Development Framework as component
of the First Respondent’s
Integrated Development Plan in terms
of the provisions of Section 34 of the Municipal Systems Act, Act 32
of 2000 read with the
Local Government: Municipal Planning and
Performance Management Regulations published under GNR796 in GG22605
of 24 August
2001 (“The Regulation”) in respect of the
Applicant’s application submitted on the
18
th
of June 2013
;
2.
That the Second Respondent and/or
Third Respondent be ordered to prepare a memorandum as contemplated
in Regulation 3(2)(a) of the
Regulation in respect of the Applicant’s
application and to refer the proposal for amendment to the First
Respondent’s
Municipal Council, in accordance with Regulation 3
within 21 (twenty one) days from the date hereof;
3.
That the First Respondent be ordered
to comply with the provisions of Regulation 3(4)(a) and 3(4)(b) of
the Regulation within 30
(thirty) days from the date within which the
memorandum as referred to in Regulation 3(2)(a) was submitted to the
First Respondent.
4.
That the First Respondent be ordered
to consider the memorandum and take a decision in respect of the
amendment of the Spatial Development
Framework in accordance with the
Applicant’s application within 1 (one) month from complying
with the provisions of Regulation
3(4) of the Regulation,
alternatively such date to be set by the Honourable Court.
5.
The First Respondent be ordered to
pay the costs of the application.
6.
Further and/or alternative relief.”
IV
THE CRISP ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
[4]
I mentioned to the parties from the onset that the solitary aspect in
dispute to be adjudicated by me is whether applicant is
entitled to
an order that the municipality’s municipal council should be
ordered to decide the application for amendment
of the SDF at this
stage after compliance with the requirements contained in regulation
3 of the Local Government: Municipal Planning
and Performance
Management Regulations, published under GNR796 in Government Gazette
22505 dated 24 August 2001(“the regulation”),
or whether
the municipal council could only be ordered to do so once an
application for township establishment has been filed as
well.
[5]
In this regard respondents blame applicant for filing a
“multi-pronged” application instead of a simple
application
for amendment of the SDF and as applicant has decided to
embark on this avenue, the municipality’s officials were fully
within
their rights not to refer the application to the municipal
council, but to insist on a township establishment application to be
filed as well.
[6]
It must be emphasised that applicant merely requires an order
directing respondents to commence with the prescribed process
in
order for the municipal council to eventually consider the
application for amendment of the SDF.
V
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
[7]
In order to understand the parties’ different viewpoints it is
necessary to provide some factual background which is not
in dispute.
[8]
Applicant is the owner of a farm just outside Bloemfontein, known as
Portion 3 of the Farm Kwaggafontein 2300, district Bloemfontein
(“applicant’s farm”). First respondent is the
owner of the remainder of the farm Bloemfontein 654, district
Bloemfontein. The portion of first respondent’s property
which is relevant to this application is situated along the
old
Kimberley road, the R64, with Van Blerk Avenue and the N1 as its
boundaries. It must still be subdivided and the extent
thereof
– the proposed subdivision - was agreed to be just over
thirteen hectares.
[9]
An exchange and sale of land agreement (“the agreement”)
was entered into between the parties in terms whereof the
proposed
subdivision, properly defined and identified, would be exchanged for
applicant’s property. It is common cause
that first
respondent intends to relocate the Bloemfontein Zoo, presently in
close proximity of the city centre, to applicant’s
farm once
registration of transfer of the properties has taken place. The
difference between the agreed valuations of the
two properties, to
wit R6 460 160.00, is to be paid by applicant to first
respondent against registration of transfer.
[10]
It was common cause during the negotiations to conclude the agreement
that applicant intended to utilise the proposed subdivision
for
development. The agreement clearly reflects this. It was
also common cause that it would be necessary to apply
for the
amendment of the SDF, the rezoning of the proposed subdivision and
the amendment of the town planning scheme to enable
the applicant to
execute the development of the property. It would also be
necessary to apply for subdivision of first respondent’s
property in order to transfer the proposed subdivision to applicant.
[11]
In terms of the agreement applicant is responsible for all costs in
relation to, and including, any approvals for subdivision
of the
proposed subdivision and for township development,
or
for an amendment of the Town Planning Scheme to rezone the proposed
subdivision to enable applicant to execute development.
I
emphasise the word
“
or
”
above as it is my impression that respondents probably misread this.
Notwithstanding the fact that the registration of the
properties has
not been taken place, applicant was allowed to apply in its own name
at all relevant authorities for subdivision
and rezoning of the
proposed subdivision.
[12]
Applicant instructed MDA Town and Regional Planners to submit an
application for the amendment of first respondent’s
SDF, for
subdivision of the proposed subdivision and further subdivision
thereof, the amendment of the Town Planning Scheme and
the rezoning
of the proposed subdivision.
[13]
The amendment of the SDF is necessary since the SDF currently
indicates first respondent’s property as “Metropolitan
open spaces” or “MOSS”, being a green category and
which does not allow for any development. Applicant
seeks an
amendment of the SDF to use category “mixed use (without
industrial)” to allow for the kind of development
anticipated
by applicant. This proposed special use will allow for uses such as
residential buildings, restaurants, shops, places
of assembly,
business premises, hotels, guesthouses, offices and several other
uses set out in applicant’s communication
to respondents.
[14]
The effect of it all is that applicant’s application consists
of four different sub-applications and this led to the
application
being referred to by respondents as a “multi-pronged”
application.
[15]
Once the SDF has been amended, the proposed subdivision will have to
be rezoned. The current zoning of the property is
indicated as
“undetermined” and this does not allow for development.
Several letters were exchanged between the
parties after the filing
of the applicant’s application. It its letter of 22
October 2013 first respondent mentioned
that the SDF had to be
amended first, and
“
after the
amendment of the SDF you are requested to submit an application for
township development due to the extent of your development.”
In a later letter, dated 20 February 2014, it
became clear that first respondent required a township establishment
application to
be filed prior to amending its SDF. In this
regard it relied on clause 5.7.1.3 (f) of the SDF which stipulates
that
“
no township establishment by
means of special uses will be allowed.”
First
respondent failed to quote the first part of the sub-paragraph which
reads as follows: “
The rezoning
process cannot be used as an alternative for a township development
and should not be applied in the yellow area
to encourage
densification or change of land use to commercial or business,
except
for approved mixed land use areas.
”
I added the emphasis. This is
really the bone of contention between the parties as applicant is of
the view that it will eventually
seek rezoning and not township
establishment. In any event, neither an application for
rezoning, nor a township establishment
application can be considered
without the SDF first being amended. Applicant insists that the
application submitted by it
has been done in the normal manner and
that it is not custom to file separate applications.
VI
APPLICABLE LEGISLATION AND LEGAL
PRINCIPLES
[16]
A SDF has no statutory or legal force, but is a tool used for land
use planning at local level. See
Camps
Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association and Others v Minister of
Planning, Culture and Administration, Western Cape and Other
2001 (4) 294 (CPD) at 326I – 327B. A municipality’s
SDF sets the urban development boundary as a planning criterion,
but
recognises that it does not preclude the approval of developments
beyond such delineation. See
Johannesburg
Metropolitan Municipality v Gauteng Development Tribunal and Others
[2008] ZAGPHC 30
;
2008 (4) SA 572
(WLD) 614G – 615C. The purpose of the SDF
is to indicate in which areas the relevant municipality intends to
allow
development and for which purposes. It is accepted that
the aims of the SDF are to promote sustainable, functional and
integrated
human settlements, maximise resources efficiently and
enhance regional identity and unique character of place.
[17]
An amendment to the SDF requires an amendment of first respondent’s
IDP, the guideline document. See section 26
of the Systems
Act. Section 35 of the Systems Act reflects the status of an
IDP as
“
the principal strategic
planning instrument which guides and informs all planning and
development, and all decisions with regard
to planning, management
and development, in the municipality.”
The
IDP binds the municipality and all other persons to the extent set
out in section 35. Section 35(2) stipulates that a
SDF
contained in an IDP “
prevails over
a plan as defined in section 1 of the Physical Planning Act, 125 of
1991”.
[18]
The adoption of IDP’s is set out in section 25 of the Systems
Act. An IDP may be amended in terms of section 34
of the
Systems Act which section reads as follows:
“
34
Annual review and amendment of integrated development plan
A municipal council-
(a)
must
review its integrated development plan-
(i) annually in
accordance with an assessment of its performance measurements in
terms of section 41; and
(ii) to the extent
that changing circumstances so demand; and
(b)
may
amend
its integrated development plan in accordance with a
prescribed
process.
” (emphasis added.)
[19]
The prescribed processes referred to in section 34 are to be found in
regulation 3 of the regulation. I quote the regulation
in full:
“
3.
Process for amending integrated development plans
(1)
Only a member or committee of a municipal
council may introduce a proposal for amending the municipality’s
integrated development
plan in the council.
(2)
Any proposal for amending a municipality’s
integrated development must be-
(a)
accompanied by a memorandum setting out the
reasons for the proposal; and
(b)
aligned with the framework adopted in terms
of section 27 of the Act.
(3)
An amendment to a municipality’s
integrated development plan is adopted by a decision taken by a
municipal council in accordance
with the rules and orders of the
council.
(4)
No amendment to a municipality’s
integrated development plan may be adopted by the municipal council
unless-
(a)
all the members of the council have been
given reasonable notice;
(b)
the proposed amendment has been published
for public comment for a period of at least 21 days in a manner that
allows the public
an opportunity to make representations with regard
to the proposed amendment;
(c)
the municipality, if it is a district
municipality, has complied with subregulation (5); and
(d)
the municipality, if it is a local
municipality, has complied with subregulation (6).
(5)
A district municipality that considers an
amendment to its integrated development plan must-
(a)
consult all the local municipalities in the
area of the district municipality on the proposed amendment; and
(b)
take all comments submitted to it by the
local municipalities in that area into account before it takes a
final decision on the
proposed amendment
(6)
A local municipality that considers an
amendment to its integrated development plan must-
(a)
consult the district municipality in whose
area it falls on the proposed amendment; and
(b)
take all comments submitted to fit by the district municipality into
account before it takes a final decision on the proposed
amendment.”
[20]
Regulation 3 does not stipulate that a township establishment
application has to be filed prior to considering an amendment
of the
SDF. It is also apparent from the regulation that the municipal
council is the only entity that may adopt an amendment
of the
municipality’s IDP.
[21]
Applications for township establishment are lodged with the fourth
respondent and not the first respondent, the latter being
a mere role
player in such procedures who may lodge objections and make
presentations to the Township’s Board. See
section 8(1)
of the Township’s Ordinance, 9 of 1969 read with section 9(2)
of the Ordinance. No such application is
required if the
developer merely wishes to develop the property instead of
establishing a township. An application for rezoning
might be
necessary and
in casu
it
is indeed necessary.
[22]
First respondent’s Executive Mayor has delegated powers in
respect of amendments to its SDF, being a part of IDP.
See
Power A18 of Delegation of Powers Policy. The Head of
Department: Planning and General Manager: Land Use Control who
was
responsible for the communication on behalf of first respondent, does
not have delegated powers to withhold the applicant’s
application for the amendment of the SDF from the municipal council
or the Executive Mayor
ex facie
the
particular Policy.
VII
EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE AND
SUBMISSIONS
[23]
Respondents have taken a point in
limine
in their answering affidavit to the effect that applicant’s
deponent to the founding affidavit, Mr Daniel Springvale Kross
“
has
not been authorised to bring this application before the honourable
court.”
It was further
stated under oath that Mr Kross’ assertion that he had been
duly authorised to act on behalf of applicant was
evidently false.
Respondents stated further:
“
The
fact that the deponent is a mere director of the applicant
strengthens the first respondent’s objection even more and
there is cogent reason to conclude that the applicant did not pass a
proper resolution authorising the institution of the proceedings
against the respondents and that the present proceedings are not
those that fall within the objects of the applicant as contained
in
its founding document.”
[24]
Mr Ncongwane wisely decided not to make any submissions in this
regard, either in his heads of argument or in oral argument.
There is no merit in the point taken and it is unbelievable that
first and second respondent’s deponent could accuse Mr Kross
of
lying without relying on any factual foundation. In any event,
challenges to authority should be done in terms of the
provisions of
rule 7(1) of the High Court rules and not in the answering
affidavits. See
Unlawful
Occupiers of School Site v City of Johannesburg
2005 (4) SA 199
SCA at paras [14] – [16].
[25]
It has been repeatedly mentioned in first and second respondent’s
answering affidavit that applicant’s application
for the
amendment of the SDF cannot be considered by the municipality’s
council without the lodging of an application for
township
establishment. Applicant on the other hand is of the view that
such an application is neither a statutory, nor a
contractual
requirement and that first respondent’s officials, who do not
have delegated powers to consider applicant’s
application, were
trampling on its right to fair administrative action that should be
afforded applicant as mentioned above. As
mentioned earlier, this
dispute is in essence the crux of the matter.
[26]
It is apparent from paragraph 2.1.6.2 of the agreement that applicant
is entitled to either apply for township establishment
on the
proposed subdivision, or an amendment of the town planning scheme to
rezone the property, as the case may be, to enable
it to execute the
development of the property. It is stipulated in paragraph
2.1.7 of the agreement that
“
this
agreement does not constitute consent to or an automatic endorsement
by the municipality for the company to proceed within
any kind of
development on property A without the municipality’s approval
for such development.”
Property
A is the proposed subdivision. It is stated in paragraph 2.1.8 as
follows:
“
Should
the company which to commence with any development on property A, the
company must:
2.1.8.1 submit a
detailed rezoning and/or development application to the municipality
for consideration and approval of the municipal
council;
2.1.8.2 adhere to
any conditions that may be imposed by the municipal council and
implement such conditions imposed fully;
2.1.8.3
attend to all issues relating to traffic, civil services and the
amendment of the Town Planning Scheme to the entire satisfaction
of
the Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality.”
[27]
Neither sub-clause 2.1.6.2, nor sub-clause 2.1.8 obliges applicant to
apply for township establishment. Furthermore it
was agreed
that the municipal council may impose conditions upon approval of an
application and this obviously excludes municipal
officials.
These officials cannot insist on the lodging of an application for
township establishment, in any event not before
the application for
amendment of the SDF is tabled in the municipal council.
[28]
Township establishment is not a statutory requirement for development
in accordance with the Township Ordinance, 9 of 1969.
The
Ordinance also deals with amendments to town planning schemes in the
form of rezoning applications and is not prescriptive
of which
process to be followed. In any event applications in this
regard have to be considered by fourth respondent, and
not first
respondent or its municipal council, although first respondent has an
important role to play and may make any relevant
submissions in that
regard. Township establishment is also not a requirement in
terms of the SDF, notwithstanding respondents’
insistence.
I refer to the portion quoted from clause 5.7.1.3
supra.
The application for amendment of the
SDF has its purpose to compel respondents to utilise regulation 3 in
order for the ultimate
decision-maker, the municipal council, to take
a decision in respect of that application. The municipal
council is not required
to determine whether applicant eventually has
to apply for township establishment or not. The basis upon
which future development
shall take place, i.e. by way of township
establishment, or by way of rezoning of the proposed subdivision, is
immaterial at this
stage. Respondents have been provided with
sufficient documentation and information in order to proceed with the
process
set out in regulation 3.
[29]
It is clear that the respondents were “bewildered” as
stated by their counsel on receipt of the so-called “multi-pronged”
application of applicant. Mr Ncongwane went so far during oral
argument to concede that the application for amendment of
the SDF
would have been referred to the municipal council if it consisted of
one or two pages only. It should have been a
simple application
and not an extensive application as relied upon by applicant. I
cannot accept such statement. Notwithstanding
the detailed
application and further information supplied, respondents are still
not satisfied. The application, a copy of
which is attached to
applicant’s founding affidavit, consists of 183 pages. Mr
Ncongwane submitted that applicant had
elected to lodge its
multi-pronged application and it had therefore made its bed and
should be prepared to lie on it. Therefore,
according to him,
officials of first respondent were fully entitled to insist on the
lodging of a township establishment application
before the matter was
considered any further. He submitted in his heads of argument
that first respondent could not on its
“
own
embark on the process as it is not privy to the details and the
nature of the development that is to be undertaken by the applicant.”
[30]
Mr Ncongwane went so far to say that, in line with first and second
respondent’s answering affidavit, a proper lay-out
plan of the
development should have been presented, indicating all individual
stands, roads, bridges, open spaces, etc, as would
be the case when
application is made for township establishment. When I
mentioned to him that such a plan has to be drawn
by a surveyor at
huge costs and eventually been approved by the Surveyor-General, he
conceded that in order to save costs, a draft
plan would suffice.
I find it unacceptable that, in the absence of statutory or
contractual requirements, such instructions
could have been issued.
It is for first respondent’s municipal council to consider in
principle whether future development
on the proposed subdivision
should be allowed and if so, it would make sense to amend the SDF as
requested by applicant.
If the property falls in an area where
development should not take place, the municipal council may well
refuse to amend the SDF.
This court was not called upon to
pre-judge the issue and therefore I refrained from considering any
arguments for or against development
in the particular area. I
accept however that applicant recognised the development potential of
the proposed subdivision,
bearing in mind the developments to the
west of Bloemfontein along the R64 and that it would not have
concluded the agreement otherwise.
A piece of land, in extent
thirteen hectares, with no prospect of developing it, is not worth
the millions that applicant was prepared
to pay.
[31]
First respondent’s officials acted unfairly to insist on a
requirement such as they have done instead of referring the
matter to
the municipality’s municipal council in accordance with
regulation 3. They did not have any authority in
this regard
and their failure to act is unfair, unjust and unlawful. Mr
Ncongwane relied on the powers and functions stated
in section 156 of
the Constitution and the judgment in
Johannesburg
Metropolitan Municipality
supra
for a submission that the official(s)
of first respondent acted within their rights to insist on the
lodging of a township establishment
application. The reliance
on these authorities is misplaced. It ignores the aforesaid
Delegation Policy whilst the
court in the judgment relied upon dealt
with the authority of properly established tribunals such as the
Gauteng Development Tribunal
and its Appeals Tribunal established
under the
Development Facilitation Act, 67 of 1995
.
[32]
The failure to embark on the process set out in
regulation 3
is
wrong, unreasonable and inequitable. As mentioned, the
application does not require of the court to consider the merits
of
the application for amendment of first respondent’s SDF.
Applicant merely seeks an order compelling the first to
third
respondents in their official capacities to commence with the process
of amending the SDF as requested in applicant’s
application
submitted on 18 June 2013, nearly two years ago.
Regulation 3
sets out the procedure to be followed and the prayers contained in
the notice of motion are in line with those procedures.
[33]
If the municipality’s municipal council refuses applicant’s
application to amend the SDF, all further processes
anticipated by
applicant in the so-called multi-pronged application will be halted
and applicant would not be able to continue,
unless the municipal
council’s decision is set aside upon review. An amendment
of the SDF would not give applicant
carte
blanche
to develop the proposed
subdivision as it wishes without first respondent having any role to
play whatsoever. This is trite
and does not need to be
addressed any further in this judgment.
[34]
In summary, the officials of first respondent were not authorised to
insist that a township establishment application be lodged,
and in
any event, no statutory or contractual obligation rests upon
applicant in this regard. The insistence is unwarranted,
ultra
vires
and, at best, premature.
[35]
I am satisfied that applicant has made out a proper case for the
relief set out in the notice of motion. I indicated
to both
counsel during argument that prayer 4 of the notice of motion refers
to “first respondent”, whilst it would
be more
appropriate to refer to “first respondent, acting through its
municipal council”. There was no objection
to such an
amendment in the event of a finding in favour of the applicant.
The same applies to prayer 3. My orders
will reflect the
amendments.
VIII
COSTS
[36]
Mr Pienaar submitted that in the event of the application being
successful, the costs order should include the costs of two
counsel.
The prayer for costs in the notice of motion does not refer thereto
and no mention was made to this aspect in the
written heads of
argument, although the heads were prepared by two counsel. The
matter is obviously of tremendous importance
to the parties, so much
so that respondents instructed senior counsel from Pretoria to argue
the matter on their behalf.
I am prepared to allow the costs of
two counsel for the following reasons: (1) the papers are voluminous;
(2) the importance of
the matter to both parties; (3) the value of
the properties and the amount of money involved; (4) the intricacy of
the legal dispute
and (5) both counsel instructed by applicant are
junior counsel, although Mr Pienaar is the senior of the two.
IX
ORDERS
[37]
Therefore I grant the following orders:
1.
First respondent and/or second respondent
and/or third respondent, in their official capacities, are ordered to
commence with the
process of amending first respondent’s
Spatial Development Framework (“SDF”) as component of
first respondent’s
Integrated Development Plan (“IDP”)
in terms of the provisions of Section 34 of the Municipal Systems
Act, Act 32 of
2000, read with the Local Government: Municipal
Planning and Performance Management Regulations published under
GNR796 in
GG22605 of 24 August 2001 (“
the
regulation”
) in respect of the
applicant’s application submitted on the
18
th
of June 2013
;
2.
Second respondent and/or third respondent
are ordered to prepare a memorandum as contemplated in regulation
3(2)(a) of the regulation
in respect of applicant’s application
and to refer the proposal for amendment to first respondent’s
municipal council,
in accordance with regulation 3 within 21 (twenty
one) days from the date hereof;
3.
First respondent, acting through its
municipal council, is ordered to comply with the provisions of
regulation 3(4)(a) and 3(4)(b)
of the regulation within 30 (thirty)
days from the date when the memorandum as referred to in regulation
3(2)(a) was submitted
to it.
4.
First respondent, acting through its
municipal council, is ordered to consider the memorandum and take a
decision in respect of
the amendment of the SDF in accordance with
applicant’s application within 1 (one) month from complying
with the provisions
of regulation 3(4) of the regulation.
5.
First respondent is ordered to pay the
costs of the application, such costs to include the costs of two
counsel.
______________
J.
P. DAFFUE, J
On
behalf of applicant: Adv. C. D. Pienaar
with
Adv. J.S. Rautenbach
Instructed
by:
Blair
Attorneys
BLOEMFONTEIN
On
behalf of respondent: Adv. A. T. Ncongwane SC
Instructed
by:
Moroka
Attorneys
BLOEMFONTEIN