HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
CASE NO: 101473/2024
(1) REPORTABLE: NO.
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
DATE: 8 AUGUST 2025
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN
MUNICIPALITY: DEPARTMENT OF
EMERGENCY SERVICES First Applicant
GAUTENG DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE
GOVERNANCE AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS Second Applicant
NATIONAL DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE
GOVERNANCE AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS Third Applicant
and
FIDELITY SECUREFIRE (PTY) LTD First Respondent
SINOVILLE FIREFIGHTING ASSOCIATION Second Respondent
Summary: Interlocutory proceedings – authority of applicants’ attorneys – disputed
and only partially proven.
ORDER
1. The relief sought in the interlocutory application is refused.
2. The first applicant in the main application is ordered to pay the second
respondent’s costs of the interlocutory application against it, on the scale as
between attorney and client.
3. Insofar as separable, Motsoeneng Bill Attorneys are to pay the second
respondent’s costs of the interlocutory application in respect of the lack of
authority to act on behalf of the second and third applicants in the main
application, on the scale as between attorney and client.
_______________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________________________________________________
The matter was heard in open court and the judgment was prepared and authored
by the judge whose name is reflected herein and was handed down electronically by
circulation to the parties’ legal representatives by email and by uploading it to the
electronic file of the matter on Caselines. The date of the handing -down is deemed
to be 8 August 2025.
DAVIS, J
Introduction
[1] In interlocutory proceedings the second respondent in the main application
disputed the authority of the applicants’ attorney to act on their behalf.
The parties in the main application
[2] The first applicant is the City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality:
Emergency Services (the CTMM). The second applicant is the Gauteng Department
of Co-Operative Governance and Traditional Affairs and the third applicant is the
National Department of Co-Operative Governance and Traditional Affairs.
[3] The first respondent is Fidelity Securefire (Pty) Ltd. The second respondent is
the Sinoville Firefighting Association (Sinoville).
[4] For ease of reference, the parties to the interlocutory application shall be
referred to as in the main applicant and as identified above.
Nature of the principal dispute
[5] In the main application, the CTMM allege s that the respondents are
contravening the statutory prescripts regarding the rendering of fire -fighting services
in the area of the CTMM’s jurisdiction.
[6] The applicants seek interdicts against the respondents to “forthwith cease all
operations, functions and/or activities … defined as “services” in terms of the Fire
Brigade Services Act 99 of 1987”.
[7] In seeking the above relief, the CTMM’s Chi ef of Emergency Services alleged
that the CTMM had the support of the other applicants as “co-functionaries”.
[8] The main application is still pending and to date on the first respondent has
delivered an answering affidavit.
The procedural chronology of the interlocutory application
[9] On 16 October 2024 Sinoville’s attorney delivered a notice in terms of Rule
7(1) on the applicants’ attorneys, calling for the furnishing of a power of attorney to
act on behalf of the applicants.
[10] On the same day the applicants’ attorneys, Motsoeneng Bill Attorneys
delivered a “Notice of Appointment as Attorneys of Record”.
[11] Annexed to the said Notice was a letter from the CTMM Group Legal and
Secretarial Services Department dated 24 June 2024. It was addressed to
Motsoeneng Bill Attorneys. It detailed the servi ng of contravention notices on
Afriforum and the Fidelity Servi ces Group. Copies of the CTMM file contents were
annexed and the attorneys were given instructions “ to come on record and assist in
litigating regarding this matter on behalf of the City ” and to “ urgently attend to this
matter”.
[12] Aggrieved by the above response, Sinoville delivered a Rule 30A notice on 24
October 2024, followed by the interlocutory application. In the Notice of Motion in
that application, being the interlocutory application under consideration, Sinoville
seeks an order that the purported power of attorney be struck out and that the entire
application be struck out insofar as it concerns Sinoville. Costs are also claimed
against Motsoeneng Bill Attorneys, on the basis that they never had a proper
mandate to represent the applicants.
[13] In the answering affidavit to the interlocutory application, attorney Malindi from
Motsoeneng Bill Attorneys contended that the letter referred to in par 11 above was
enough to prove Motsoeneng Bill Attorneys’ mandate. He further explained that the
reference to Afriforum was because “ some of the parties rendering services
unlawfully had enlisted the help of Afriforum to do its binding”. Sinoville was accused
of being vexations in continuing its challenges to the mandate of Motsoeneng Bill
Attorneys.
[14] Attorney Malindi referred to “ further responses to the continue d challenges”
and maintained that Motsoeneng Bill Attorneys “ hold the power of attorney to act for
the first applicant”.
[15] The “further responses” referred to was firstly an extract from a memorandum
from the CTMM Group Legal and Secretarial Services seeking a resolution from the
Acting City Manager for “ approval to appoint Bill Motseoneng Attorneys to assist … ”
in a court application against “ Sinoville Firefighting (represented by Afriforum) and
Fidelity Service Group”.
[16] The second “further” document was indeed a Power of Attorney delivered as
contemplated in Rule 7. It was signed by Mr As hraf Adam in his capacity as the
“Government Support Officer: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality”. The
document mandated Motsoeneng Bill Attorneys Inc to act as the attorney on behalf
of the CTMM “… to prosecute and secure an order … ” against the respondents,
which were properly identified in the Power of Attorney.
[17] The Power of Attorney, despite indicating that it had been executed in the
presence of witnesses, bore no signature of any witnesses. It was dated 22
November 2024, which post -dated the launch of the main application on 6
September 2024.
[18] No resolution by the Acting City Manager has been produced and neither has
Mr Adam’s authority, delegated or otherwise, been confirmed.
[19] In respect of the second and third applicants, Mr Malindi relied on
“engagements” by way of correspondence on which Motsoeneng Bill Attorneys
“believed” it had a mandate to act on their behalf.
The requirements of Rule 7
[20] Save for appeals, Rule 7(1) provides t hat a power of attorney need not be
filed “… but the authority of anyone acting on behalf of a party may … be disputed,
whereafter such person may no longer act unless he satisfied the court that he is
authorized so to act …”.
[21] In respect of proving authority to act by way of a power of attorney, Rule 7(4)
provides that “ Every power of attorney filed by an attorney shall be signed by or on
behalf of the party giving it and shall otherwise be duly executed according to law;
provided that where a power of attorney is signed on behalf of the party giving it,
proof of authority to sign on behalf of such party shall be produced …”.
Evaluation
[22] It is clear from the above, that the initial response to Sinoville’s Rule 7
challenge to the authority of Motsoeneng Bill Attorneys to act on behalf of the CTMM
falls short of the requirements of Rule 7. The letter of 24 June 2024 was not a power
of attorney, despite it containing a request to “assist in litigating this matter on behalf
of the City”. The authority of the author of the letter, being the Divisional Head: Legal
Counsel” had also not been proven. The letter also lacks the belated explanation
furnished as to the alleged link between Afriforum and Sinoville.
[23] Counsel for the applicant tri ed to explain in oral argument that the CTMM
employs a panel of attorneys, all appointed with proper authorization . After having
become part of the panel , a letter in the fashion as that of 24 June 2025 was merely
a selection of a particular attorney for purposes of a particular instance . H ence the
a selection of a particular attorney for purposes of a particular instance . H ence the
formulation of the letter as “an instruction”. This explanation was however not
supported by any evidence placed before the court.
[24] Similarly, the copy of the memorandum for a resolution by the Acting City
Manager also did not meet the requirements of Rule 7. Apart from not being a power
of attorney, it suffers from its inherent shortcomings: there was no proof of any actual
resolution or the outcome of the memorandum.
[25] The belatedly produced power of attorney also has shortcomings: it does not
bear the signatures of the envisaged witnesses in whose presence it was purportedly
executed, it post -dates the launching of the main applicant and the authority or
delegated authority of the Government Support Officer has not been proven.
[26] In order to ascertain whether the main application itself had been authorized, I
resorted to the founding affidavit thereof. The deponent was the CTMM Chief of
Emergency Services. He has deposed to his delegated authority and has annexed
the necessary supporting documents in this regard.
[27] Apart from the actual authority to launch the main application, the CTMM ’s
deponent, in his affidavit relied on the advice of the CTMM’s “legal representatives”
when he made submissions of a legal nature. This founding affidavit was annexed to
and referred to in the Notice of Motion drafted, signed and issued by Motsoeneng Bill
Attorneys.
[28] I also had regard to the affidavit of Mr Malindi wherein he, on oath, confirmed
that Motsoeneng Bill Attorneys “ hold the (sic) power of attorney to act for the first
applicant”. For the remainder of his affidavit, it contains points in limine of no
consequence, argumentative material and various unbecoming attac ks on Sinoville
and its attorneys. I shall deal with these when dealing with the issue of costs.
[29] The purpose of Rule 7 is to establish the mandate of the attorney claiming to
act on behalf of a party “… to prevent a person whose name is being used
throughout the process from afterw ards repudiating the process altogether and
saying he had given no authority and to prevent persons bringing an action in the
saying he had given no authority and to prevent persons bringing an action in the
name of a person who never authorized it”1.
1 Van Loggenberg, Erasmus Superior Court Practice, Second Edition at D1-93 and in particular the
cases quoted at footnote 1.
[30] Applying this test and, in recognition of the evidence given on oath by the two
deponents mentioned earlier, the court is satisfied that Motsoeneng Bill Attorneys
had been mandated to act on behalf of the CTMM in this matter.
[31] The same cannot be said for their purported authority to act on behalf of the
other two applicants. No similar evidence on affidavit nor any power of attorney as
produced by the CTMM, had been produced.
[32] Although most of the evidence relating to the mandate of Motsoeneng Bill
Attorneys was only produced after the launch of the main application, i t would serve
no practical purpose, once i t has been determined that they may act on behalf of
CTMM, to relaunch the application. No real prejudice has been suffered by Sinoville
as a result of this as proceedings have been pended pending finalization of this
interlocutory application, and to require a re -launching of the main application, would
simply amount to a waste of time and costs.
[33] However, it is also abundantly clear that the proof of an actual mandate had
been done in an unsatisfactory and haphazard fashion. The CTMM appears to be
part and parcel of this bungling. I therefore see no need to award costs on a de
boniis propriis basis against Motsoeneng Bill Attorneys for the costs of the
interlocutory application. The apportionment of liability for those costs they and the
CTMM can debate amongst themselves but I find, in the manner that th ey had both
approached the mandate issue, that the interlocutory application had not been
frivolously brought by Sinoville, despite the outcome.
[34] In addition, I find the repeated attacks on Sinoville and its legal
representatives in the opposition to the justifiable testing of Mots oeneng Bill
Attorneys’ mandate unbecoming. When this unbecoming attack is combined with the
haphazard proof of the mandate, I find, in the exercise of the court’s discretion, that it
justifies a punitive costs order2.
justifies a punitive costs order2.
[35] The same argument relating t o de boniis propriis costs vis -a-vis the CTMM
mentioned earlier, cannot of course, apply to the second and third applicants.
Insofar as the Taxing Master may notionally be able to separate costs, the
2 See also: Erasmus, supra at D5 – 21 to D5 – 24.
unsuccessful defence of the lack of authority to act on behalf o f the second and third
applicants, must be for the account of Motsoeneng Bill Attorneys themselves. The
scale of costs should be the same as in respect of that ordered against the CTMM.
[36] Insofar as the various parties had requested or needed condonation for
various processes or delays in the proceedings, such condonation is granted.
Order:
[37] In the premises, the following orders are made:
1 The relief sought in the interlocutory application is refused.
2 The first applicant in the main application is ordered to pay the second
respondent’s on the scale as between attorney and client.
3 Insofar as separable, Motsoeneng Bill Attorneys are to pay the second
respondent’s costs of the interlocutory application in respect of the lack
of authority to act on behalf of the second and third applicants in the
main application, on the scale as between attorney and client.
N DAVIS
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Pretoria
Date of Hearing: 01 August 2025
Judgment delivered: 08 August 2025
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicants: Adv JGC Hamman
Attorney for the Applicants: Hurter Spies Incorporated, Pretoria
For the Respondent: Adv KP Mputle
Attorney for the Respondent: Motsoeneng Bill Attorneys, Wendywood