IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 117036 /2024
In the matter between:
PTPC (PTY) LIMITED Applicant
And
CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY First Respondent
CITY MANAGER OF CITY OF TSHWANE MUNICIPAL ITY Second Respondent
JUDGMENT
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO
(4) Date: 28 March 2025
Signature: _
2
NYATHI J
A. INTRODUCTION
[1] The applicant is before the urgent court seeking an order executing a spoliation
order it had obtained in this court earlier in terms of section 18 (1) and (3) of the
Superior Courts Act 10 of 20131 pending an application for leave to appeal
lodged by the respondents .
[2] The applicant is a participant in the outdoor advertising board industry. It has
been in litigation against the respondents who are a municipality charged with
regulating among other activities, the billboards within its area of jurisdiction. One
such court application resulted in the applicant being granted a spoliation order
by this court2 against the respondents .
[3] The app licant therefore seek an order preserving the status quo until the
outcome of the application for leave to appeal and possibly, the appeal itself.
[4] Mr. Viljoen submitted on behalf of the applicant that it was galvanized in to
launching this instant application by corresp ondence it received from the
attorneys acting on behalf of the respondents as quoted below .
[5] The relevant correspondence is a letter from the applicant’s attorneys dated 13
February 2025 (“RR 7”) seeking assurances that the respondents would not
remove signage belonging to the applicant. The respondents’ attorneys
responded in reaction to the threatened legal action by the applicants ’ attorneys ,
1 Section 18 (1) read with (3) provides that the court may on application, under exceptional circumstances order the
operation and execution of a decision which is subject of an application for leave to appeal or of an appeal on
certain conditions.
2 As per draft order dated 14 November 2024 and the written judgment dated 03 February 2025 by Her Ladyship Ju stice
Basson J.
3
by stating in paragraph 5 of its letter of reply dated 13 February 2025 (“RR 8”)
that:
“5. We look forward to receiving your client’s application timeously.”
[6] The respondents oppose the application based on both lack of urgency and on
its merits.
[7] Mr. Mbeki on behalf of the respondents, contends that this application is not
urgent. He stated that :
7.1 The order by Basson J was granted on 14 November 2024 and
only lost its efficacy when the respondents filed their application
for leave to appeal on 25 November 2024.
7.2 The applicant herein comes 3 months down the line with no
explanation whatsoever and seek execution of the order. When
the ap plicant sought and obtained the order before his Lordship
4
Holland -Mutter J on 28 November 2024, they should at that time ,
have sought this relief.
7.3 The applicant rushed to court in circumstances where the
respondents have merely issued a notice only and have not
removed any signage.
7.4 The respondents react to community complaints .
7.5 The applicant does not, at an y rate, have permission to
advertise.
7.6 The applicant will have a remedy in due course because their
section 18 application is pending and will be heard together with
the application for leave to appeal as their papers allege.
[8] In the totality of facts in this application, I am inclined to agree with the
respondents’ submissions. The applicant has obtained in the previous week an
undertaking by agreement between the parties, which was made an order by Her
Ladyship Mnqibisa -Thusi J relating to the same subject -matter as Basson J’s
order.
[9] The fact of the applicant having been impelled to launch an urgent application
on the basis of being “dared to file timeously ” by the respondent is devoid of
rationality .
[10] Accordingly, I make the following order:
(i) The application is struck from the roll for lack of urgency .
5
(ii) The app licant is ordered to pay the respondents’ costs including the costs of 17
February 2025 at scale B .3
J.S. NYATHI
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Pretoria
Date of hearing: 20/02/2025
Date of Judgment: 28 Ma rch 2025
On behalf of the Applicant : Adv. J.C. Viljoen
Instructed by: Jaques Classen Inc.
On behalf of the Defendants: Adv. S.D. Mbeki
Instructed by: Majang Inc.
Delivery : This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties'
legal representatives by email and uploaded on the CaseLines electronic platform. The
date for hand -down is deemed to be 28 March 2025.
3 Rule 69 of the Uniform Rules of Court .