. REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case No: 058814/2023
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
(1) REPORTABLE: / NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: / NO
(3) REVISED.
alg\es
DATE IGNATURE
In the matter between:
CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN
MUNICPALITY Applicant
and
JET A1 LUXURY TOUR CC First Respondent
PADALANE CONSTRUCTION AND
PROJECTS CC Second Respondent
Page 1 of 6
MASTERS PANEL BEATERS Third Respondent
SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH Fourth Respondent
oo sssssssssssss—sS—
JUDGMENT ON LEAVE TO APPEAL
a eeeseseseSS—S—S—eseseseh
FRANCIS-SUBBIAH, J:
(1] The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the dismissal of the application with
costs on 11 March 2025.
[2] In considering a leave to appeal there must be reasonable prospects that another
court may come to a different conclusion.
[3] | The respondents oppose this application on the basis that the court had not erred
in its findings and that there are no reasonable prospects that another court may
come to a different conclusion. In particular there is no compelling reason why
the appeal should be heard, taking into account conflicting judgments on the
matter under consideration, such as a legitimate dispute on the law or a
reasonable prospect that the factual matrix could receive a different treatment.
Page 2 of 6
[4] Having read the papers and having heard counsel, | had considered the issues
raised by the applicant and respondents in coming to this decision on the leave
to appeal. | have dealt with the reasons for dismissal of the application. | will,
however, further elaborate on salient points raised in this application.
[5] The applicant advances that the court erred in dismissing the application on the
basis that the Municipality failed to serve an eviction notice on the respondents
prior to instituting legal proceedings. Applicant relied on Residents of Joe Slovo
Community, Western Cape v Thubelisha Homes and Others (CCT 22/08)
[2009] ZACC 16; 2009 (9) BCLR 847 (CC); 2010 (3) SA 454 (CC) where an
eviction order was granted despite an eviction notice not being served. Applicant
contends that the court was bound by this decision and failed to follow it. It is,
however, clear that the facts in the present matter differ considerably with those
in Joe Slovo, which the applicant fails to take into account.
[6] The notion that the Constitutional Court granted an eviction order without notice
is incorrect. There were negotiations between the authorised representatives of
the community in Joe Slovo, the residents themselves and the authorities. In the
present matter there were no negotiations with the respondents. It was advanced
that the applicant had taken photographs without any explanations given or
negotiations taking place.
Page 3 of 6