2
JUDGMENT
DU PLESSIS J
Introduction
[1] The matter before the court (on the unopposed roll) concerns an application by
the applicant for the enforcement of a 2018 resolution of the City of Ekurhuleni
Metropolitan Municipality, which directed the sale and transfer of specific properties to
the applicant. The municipal council duly passed this resolution, creating a legitimate expectation that the transfer would be finalised. Despite this, the respondents failed to give effect to the resolution.
[2] This application was previously the subject of a consent order issued in April 2024 in the unopposed court, where the respondents also entered appearance at the last minute and wherein they were ordered to take steps to effect the transfer or file
answering affidavits. The respondents have failed to comply with the order, and their continued inaction has necessitated the present proceedings. It must be emphasised that court orders, even if granted by agreement, are binding and must be adhered to. The rule of law dictates that orders of this court are to be obeyed and that non-
compliance undermines the administration of justice.
[3] On the day of the hearing, the respondents brought an interlocutory application seeking a postponement. The reasons advanced for the postponement are
unpersuasive and amount to an unjustified delay. It is a well-established principle that
postponements are not granted as a matter of right but must be justified on substantial grounds. As held in Minister of Safety and Security v G4S International UK Ltd, In re:
G4S International UK Ltd v South African Airways (Pty) Ltd ,
1 last-minute opposition by
the attorneys acting on behalf of state entities and its counsel is highly undesirable,
and courts should not condone this practice. The respondents have been afforded
sufficient time to comply with the court’s prior order and their failure to do so cannot be excused.
1 [2012] ZAGPJHC 50 at [15] and [16] .
3
[4] The respondents’ conduct mirrors the concerning trend of attorneys appearing at the last minute to seek postponements without offering reasonable justifications.
Such tactics unnecessarily burden the judicial system and result in wasted costs. The
respondents have failed to provide a compelling reason for their inaction in their application to postpone, and their request seems to be merely an attempt to further
delay proceedings.
[5] The applicant has demonstrated compliance with all necessary requirements. The applicant correctly argues that it is entitled to the relief sought, and the court should not permit continued delays that prejudice the applicant.
[6] In light of the respondents’ failure to comply with the court’s prior order and their last-minute attempt to delay proceedings, a punitive costs order on an attorney and client scale is warranted. Such an order is necessary to mark the court’s
displeasure at the respondents’ conduct and to, hopefully, deter similar behaviour in
future. The applicant’s legal representatives have incurred unnecessary costs due to the respondents’ dilatory approach, which warrants judicial censure in the form of a punitive costs award.
[7] I thus grant the order in terms of the draft order as prayed for by the applicant.
Order
[8] The following order is made:
1. The application for postponement is dismissed. 2. The Municipal Manager of the City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality
(“Municipality”) is directed and authorised on behalf and in the name of
the Municipality, to:
2.1. sign the sale agreement, a draft which is annexed marked “X”,
effecting the sale and transfer of title in Remaining Portions of
Erven 158, 161 and 162 in the township of Raceview, Alberton, City
of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality measuring in exte nt