1
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Not reportable
Case no: 2025-207118
In the matter between
AD OUTPOST TWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN (PTY) LTD APPLICANT
and
MANGAUNG METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY FIRST RESPONDENT
SEKONDERE MEISIESKOOL ORANJE SECOND RESPONDENT
LETTIE FOUCHE SKOOL THIRD RESPONDENT
TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING SOUTH AFRICA FOURTH RESPONDENT
(PTY) LTD T/A BLOEMGATE TOTAL
THOLO RES BAR (PTY) LTD T/A RE-A-HOLA CENTRE FIFTH
RESPONDENT
BODY CORPORATE OF LOCH LOGAN PARK SIXTH RESPONDENT
MINISTER OF COOPRATE GOVERNANCE SEVENTH RESPONDENT
AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS
MINISTER OF FINANCE EIGHTH RESPONDENT
Neutral citation: AD Outpost Two Thousand and Seven (Pty) Ltd v Mangaung
Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2025-207118) [2025]
ZAFSHC 360 (19 November 2025)
2
Coram: MHLAMBI J
Heard: 14 November 2025
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to
the parties’ representatives by email and released to SAFLII. The date and time
for hand-down is deemed to be 12h00 on 19 November 2025.
Summary: Interdict – self-created urgency – principles restated –
application struck from the roll.
3
ORDER
The application is struck from the roll with costs including counsel’s costs on
scale B.
JUDGMENT
Mhlambi J
[1] The applicant filed a motion with the court that includes Parts A and
B. In Part A, urgent relief is requested through a specific order as follows:
‘2.1 The First Respondent be interdicted and further restrained from enforcing the
provisions of Section 28 of the Advertising By-laws in the following manner:
2.1.1 Removing or otherwise interfering with the Applicant's outdoor media signage
on the sites listed and referred to under paragraph 18.2 of the Founding Affidavit;
2.1 .2. Implementing Debt Collection measures in terms of the First Respondents
Credit Policy;
2.1.3. Consolidating the accounts of the Applicant with those of the respective
properties of the Second to Sixth Respondents, referred to under the paragraph 18.2
of the Founding Affidavit;
2.1.4.Disconnecting any utility services to the properties referred to under paragraph
18.2 of the Founding Affidavit pursuant to the enforcement of Section 28 of the
advertising By-laws;
2.1.5. Withdrawing the Applicant's approvals obtained for the advertising signs on the
properties mentioned in paragraph 18.2 of the Founding Affidavit , relying on the
Applicant's non-compliance with Section 28 of the Advertising Bylaws.
3. Punitive costs against the First Respondent.
4
4. Further and/or alternative relief.’
[2] Part B aims to declare unlawful and constitutionally invalid the provisions
of s 28 of the Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality By -Laws related to Outdoor
Advertising1 (the By -Law), to the extent they conflict with s 229 of the
Constitution, the Local Government: Municipal Property Rates Act 6 of 2004
and the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000.
[3] The sites mentioned under para 18.2 of the founding affidavit pertain to
the second through sixth respondents.
[4] The first respondent opposed the application. The second to fifth
respondents did not, while the sixth respondent’s counsel merely appeared to
inform the court that it supported the relief sought in Part A. The first
respondent’s counsel objected to this form of communication, arguing that
counsel could not sneak into court and make prejudicial statements without the
first respondent’s input.
[5] The first respondent argued that the issue was not urgent and was a
result of self-created urgency by the applicant. The applicant had been inactive
for at least two weeks before the urgent application was filed. The first
respondent was given limited time to oppose the relief by submitting an
answering affidavit. The relief was not valid because the first respondent had
issued notices of withdrawal of consent and notices of compliance related to
unauthorized signs, which are the subject of the current application.
[6] The applicant is a limited liability company with a registered address at
Maxwell Office Park, 3[...] M[...] Crescent, Waterfall City, Johannesburg. The
first respondent is a local municipality with its main office at Bram Fischer
Building, Nelson Mandela and Markgraaf Streets, Bloemfontein (the Metro) .
The second to sixth respondents are schools and businesses within the
jurisdiction of the first respondent. The seventh and eighth respondents are
1 Provincial Notice No. 46 of 2019.
5
ministers cited in their official capacities. No relief is sought against the second
to eighth respondents.
[7] It is commonly accepted that the applicant is the lessee in separate
outdoor advertising-related agreements with the second to sixth respondents at
various sites. The applicant complied with the first respondent’s requirements
by applying for municipal consent to engage in outdoor advertising activities at
the various sites. The authori sations were renewed on 10 April 2025. In the
founding affidavit, the applicant stated that the first respondent unilaterally
created account number 497160 1550 for the applicant in May 2017 and
debited it with the amount of R484,556.00, including VAT. Upon inquiry, these
amounts were identified as levies or taxes imposed by the first respondent on
outdoor media companies for billboards erected on private property within the
first respondent’s jurisdiction. At that time, the by-law regulating outdoor
advertising operations was the 2015 by-law, which did not contain a provision
similar to s 28 of the current By-law that allows levies to be billed according to a
schedule of tariffs.
[8] In March 2023, the first respondent created and assigned additional
accounts for the applicants relating to privately owned properties where the
applicant had installed billboards. On 1 September 2025, the applicant obtained
legal advice regarding the legality and lawfulness of the charges imposed by
the first respondent. It then filed an application against the first respondent, the
Ministers of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, and Finance
under case number 4592/2025. The applicant soug ht to challenge the
constitutionality of section 28 of the By -law, requesting that it be declared
unlawful and invalid. On September 16, 2025, the first respondent issued a
letter of demand to the applicant, claiming arrears on annual levies billed to four
of the five accounts assigned to the applicant, totalling R998,559.69. Failure to
of the five accounts assigned to the applicant, totalling R998,559.69. Failure to
settle the account within seven days would allow the respondent to withdraw its
consent to outdoor advertising, remove the applicant’s signage, and disconnect
the water supply to the sites.
6
[9] On 19 September 2025, the applicant, through its attorneys in the initial
application, informed the first respondent that its threats were premature and
unauthorized. The applicant asked the first respondent to stop such conduct,
warning that failure to do so would prompt the applicant to pursue appropriate
legal remedies. The first respondent disputed the applicant's claims and filed an
opposition to the initial application.
[10] On 26 September 2025, the first respondent addressed a letter to the
applicant’s attorneys, stating the following:
1 It had no intention of suddenly cutting off water supplies to the second
through sixth respondents;
2 That the compliance period granted in the first respondent’s letter of 16
September 2025, is extended by seven days;
3 That no account consolidation has happened yet;
4 Those disconnections will only occur after the accounts are consolidated
and relevant notices have been issued and disclosed to the lessors.
[11] The applicant responded through its attorneys, condemning the first
respondent’s attempt to intensify collection efforts against the applicant and its
lessors. It requested an undertaking from the first respondent to cease such
conduct. The first respondent did not reply to the request.
[12] On 9 October 2025, the first respondent issued withdrawal notices to the
applicant and five of its lessors to remove the outdoor advertising signage. On
14 October 2025, the applicant responded, stating it had no choice but to adapt
and repurpose the pending litigation to protect its rights unless it received an
undertaking not to enforce the s 28 By-law, pendente lite, by Friday, 17 October
2025, at close of business. The first respondent did not respond to the
proposal.
[13] In argument, the applicant conceded that determining a constitutional
issue was, under the circumstances, not urgent and that, from 17 October
2025, until the filing of the urgent application, the applicant took no action. The
7
applicant considered the matter urgent because the removal of signage, the
consolidation of accounts, and the disconnection of the water supply were
expected to occur shortly after Friday, 17 October 2025. This prompted the
applicant to prepare the urgent papers immediately after the 17 October
deadline.
[14] The first respondent stated in its answering affidavit that the applicant
withdrew the initial application under case 4592/2025 on 3 November 2025.
The present application was only filed at the Metro’s offices on 6 November
2025. The first respondent was expected to respond to the newly amended and
reworked portion of the application within three court days, calculated from
Friday, 7 November 2025, to Tuesday, 11 November 2025, as it was directed
to file its answering affidavit by the close of business on Tuesday, the 11th.
This timeline was unrealistic, as the shortened period was intended to prevent
an organ of state from responding to an urgent application seeking relief to stop
it from exercising its statutory public power pending a declaration of the
constitutional invalidity of a by-law.
[15] The first respondent engaged its attorneys on 10 November 2025, and
was only able to schedule a virtual consultation with senior and junior counsel
in Cape Town, as well as new junior counsel in Bloemfontein, on Tuesday, 11
November 2025, at 16h00 due to existing commitments.
[16] Rule 6(12)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court states that in every affidavit
supporting an application under paragraph (a) of this subrule, the applicant
must clearly describe the circumstances that make the matter urgent and
explain why they believe they cannot obtain substantial redress at a regular
hearing. In East Rock Trading 7 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Eagle Valley Granite
(Pty) Ltd and Others ,2 it was emphasized that the procedure outlined in rule
6(12) is not merely for formality. The applicant must explicitly state the
6(12) is not merely for formality. The applicant must explicitly state the
circumstances they claim make the matter urgent. More importantly, they must
also provide the reasons why they believe they cannot receive substantial
2 East Rock Trading 7 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Eagle Valley Granite (Pty) Ltd and Others [2011]
ZAGPJHC 196.
8
redress at a scheduled hearing in due course. The question of whether a
matter is urgent enough to be enrolled and heard as an urgent application turns
on whether there is no substantial redress through a normal application.3
[17] It is trite that an applicant cannot create his or her own urgency by
delaying the filing of an application , and the court will not come to the
assistance of an applicant who has delayed approaching the court. 4 The
applicant has known since 2019 that the respondent had unilaterally opened
and allocated its accounts and had sent invoices. The alleged illegality was
known as of 1 September 2025 when it sought legal advice, and it was aware,
by 16 September 2025, of the withdrawal of the consent and the disconnection
of the water supply. The applicant withdrew the initial application only on 3
November 2025 and filed the new application only on 6 November 2025. The
delay in launching these proceedings5 does not evidence any pressing urgency
in connection with the matter , nor does the founding affidavit point to any
instance of prejudice having been suffered by the applicant. On the contrary,
the undisputed evidence is that the applicant was aware of the accounts
allocated to him for a considerable period , up to the point at which they sought
legal advice.
[18] In its replying affidavit, the applicant sought to dispel the idea of self -
created urgency, stating that it had consistently worked to remove the need for
urgent proceedings by asking the first respondent not to interfere with the
utilities and services provided to and paid for by the applicant's landlords, the
second to sixth respondents. Additionally, the first respondent was asked to
give commitments not to interfere with the applicant’s outdoor advertising
operations while waiting for the outcome of the constitutional challenge against
the s 28 By -law. The applicants cannot rely on these requests for undertakings
the s 28 By -law. The applicants cannot rely on these requests for undertakings
as a basis for urgency, since, at best, they amount to self-created urgency.6
3 Ibid para 6.
4 Tukela v Minister of Public Works and Others [2017] ZALCPE 28.
5 Transvaal Agricultural Union v Minister of Land Affairs and Another [1996] ZACC 22; 1996 (12)
BCLR 1573; 1997(2) SA 621.
6 M.E.M v K.M.N.O [2024] ZAFSHC 94 para 42.
9
[19] The courts have consistently refused urgent applications in cases when
the urgency relied upon was clearly self -created. Consistency is important in
this context , as it informs the public and legal practitioners that the Rules of
Court and Practice Directives can be ignored only at a litigant's peril. Legal
certainty is one of the cornerstones of a legal system based on the rule of law.7
[20] In the circumstances, I am not convinced that the applicants have
established a proper case for urgency. The application should be removed from
the roll due to lack of urgency, and costs should follow the outcome.
Order
The application is struck from the roll, with counsel’s costs on scale B.
JJ MHLAMBI
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
7 Dynamic Sister Trading (Pty) Limited and Another v Nedbank Limited [2023] ZAGPPHC 709.
10
Appearances
For the Appellant: Mr Mfazi
Instructed by: Symington De Kok Attorneys
For the Respondent: Mr Snyman
Instructed by: Raynard & Associates INC