IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO : 224977/2025
(l) RE POR TAB LE: NO
(2) O F INTEREST TO O THER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
MR CHIPS PLUS (PTY) LTD
t/a BOER & BIER RESTUARANT
And
CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY
MAGESHREE NAIDOO N.O
Applicant
First Respondent
Second Respondent
Delivered: This judgment is handed down electronically by circulation to the Par
ties/their legal representatives by email and by uploading to Caselines. The date and
time of hand-down is deemed to be 14:00 on 24 November 2025.
JUDGMENT
LENYAI J
1. This is an application wherein the applicant seeks the following orders:
1
1.1 That the applicant's non-compliance with the Uniform Rules of Court re
lating to the forms, service and time periods be condoned, and that the
matter be heard as one of urgency in terms of Rule 6(12)(a);
1.2 That the First and Second respondents be directed and compelled to
remove the prohibition notice issued on the 19th No vember 2025 in terms
of Regulation 4(2) of Regulation 638 of 22 June 2018, and to immed i
ately allow the applicants to resume trading operations;
1.3 That the respondents be interdicted and prohibited from issuing any fur
ther unlawful prohibition notices against the applicant, pending lawful
compliance procedures in terms of Regulation 638;
1.4 That the respondents be ordered to bear the costs of this application,
jointly and severally, including the costs of counsel on an attorney and
client scale.
2. The matter is opposed by the respondents, and the applicant raised a point in
limine, that the respondents have not appointed a correspondent attorney
practicing within the geographical area of the court as is required by the rules
of court.
3. Taking into consideration that the applicant brought this matter on extreme
urgency, after hours on a Friday night, the court invokes the pow er conferred
upon it by the Constitution in Section 173. This section grants the Constitu
tional Court, Supreme Court of Appeals and the High Court inherent power to
protect and regulate their own processes and to develop the common law.
4. I am of the view that each case must be adjudicated on its own merits and
only in exceptional circumstances may the court deviate from the rules. The
matter before me is such that the court can condone the noncompliance of the
respondents with the rules as both parties are represented before court, and
it is in the interest of justice to allow and condone the respondents' noncom
pliance with the rules.
2
5. The respondents in their answering affidavit have raised a point in limine, that
the applicant is not a registered company and have attached a report by the
Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (Cl PC) dated the 21st No
vember 2025.
6. The respondents submit that the effect of the CIPC report of 21 November
2025, is that there is no applicant before court. They further contend that the
applicant attached a CIPC report dated 11 May 2023, which is outdated.
7. The applicant in its replying affidavit stated that this latest report speaks to the
fact that the company is in the process of deregistration because they have
not submitted tax returns. They also advised the court that the company is
compliant with SARS and have also attached the report dated April 2025.
8. It is trite that the applicant must set out all the facts and attach the relevant
documents supporting its case in the founding affidavit. The fact that the ap
plicant was caught out by the respondents and had to explain in the replying
affidavit is very telling. The latest C IPC report supersedes the one of 2023
attached by the applicant in its application and the point in limine is accepted
by the court. Seeing that there is no applicant before court, the matter stands
to be struck off the urgent roll.
9. Under the circumstances, I make the following order:
9.1 The application is truck off the roll.
9.2 The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the respondents on an attor
ney and client scale.
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
3
Appearances
Counsel for Appellants
Counsel for Respondent.
Instructed by
Date of hearing
Date of Judgement
Adv S Pendani
A Trust Account Advocate
Adv Mbeki
Leepile Attorneys
21 November 2025
24 November 2025
4