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
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAGPJHC 420
|
|
Millu v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Another (supplemental judgment) (25039/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 420 (29 April 2024)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case
no: 25039/20211
1.
REPORTABLE: no
2.
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: yes
In
the matter between:
PETER
TANYA MILLU
Applicant
And
CITY
OF JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN
First Respondent
MUNICIPALITY
CITY
POWER SOC LTD
Second Respondent
SUPPLEMENTARY
JUDGMENT
This
judgment has been delivered by electronic transmission on the online
database of the Gauteng Division of the High Court of
South Africa,
Johannesburg, on 22 April 2024 at 10h00 and by email transmission to
the attorneys of record.
Per
Sutherland DJP:
[1]
This is a supplemental judgment to that which I handed down on 19
March 2024, [2024] ZAGJHC 291 (GJ). It should read as
an appendix to
that judgment.
[2]
The supplementary judgment became necessary because of the orders
made in that judgment as follows:
‘
Mr
Ngwana, the legal advisor must make representations within 10 days of
the service of this order in which he offers reasons why
he should
not personally be ordered to pay 10% of the costs incurred; a failure
to timeously deliver such representations shall
result in a
supplementary order being made to that effect.
This
judgment must be brought to the attention of the Mayor, the City
Manager, the Head of revenue collection in the City and to
the chief
legal advisor.’
[3]
Mr Ngwana has filed an affidavit, as ordered. In it he addresses why,
in his view, he should not personally share with
the City, the
obligation to pay the costs order.
[4]
In this affidavit the deponent explains his personal role as a mere
conduit for City Power, the entity which is responsible
for the
operational aspects of supplying electricity and computing what is
owed by the householder for that service.
[5]
He further explains that in regard to the nub of this case, i.e. the
failure to file heads of argument, he was induced
to believe that
this obligation could be excused by addressing the dispute over
accurate billing by operational means carried out
by City Power. By
such means, so was the intention, the dispute would be settled. The
decision to take this step might have
originated from Mr Baloyi the
instructing attorney, but the statement on this score is not wholly
clear. The flaw in this reasoning
is that such a decision cannot be
taken unilaterally.
[6]
I am satisfied thar Mr Ngwana’s role is indeed that of a mere
minion in the organisational arrangement of the City
for dealing with
this category of dispute. Accordingly, I am satisfied that he ought
not to share in the burden of paying the costs
order. I accept his
declaration of bona fides. I have already addressed the role of the
legal practitioners and say no more on
that aspect.
[6]
I bears mention that the intrinsic dysfunctionality in the
administration of the City, as regards this category of dispute,
upon
which I have commented adversely in the principal judgment, is
vividly corroborated by these revelations.
[7]
The experience of the householder as described in this matter is no
aberration. In the principal judgment I alluded to
the observation of
Strydom J on a similar debacle in which it seems the same legal team
from the City were implicated. As fate
would have it, Chetty J handed
down, on 5 April 2024, an extensive and comprehensive judgment
dealing with the same genus of dysfunctionality
in the billing by the
City. (
Ackerman v City of Johannesburg and others [2024]
ZAGJHC 334 (GJ)
) The pattern of administrative failure that ends
up in litigation at the expense of the ratepayers is a disgrace.
[8]
The crisis of accountability – or rather, the lack thereof –
in public institutions must be arrested. The
suggestion that the
executive officers of the City be cited in their personal capacities
seems an appropriate practice to be adopted
by litigation attorneys
and I encourage that to be done. Accountability from those who are
culpable must be exacted.
Roland
Sutherland
Deputy
Judge President,
Gauteng
Division, Johannesburg.
Heard:
4 March 2024
Judgment:
18 March 2024.
Supplementary
Judgment: 29
April 2024
Appearances:
For
the Applicant:
Adv
J Peter SC
Instructed
by Kaveer Guiness Incorporated.
For
the First and Second Respondents:
Adv
E Sithole
Instructed
by Madhlopa and Thenga Incorporated.