About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAGPJHC 65
|
|
Boksburg Steel Pressings (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg and Others (2024/131953; 2023/130701) [2026] ZAGPJHC 65 (28 January 2026)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case no: 2024/131953
(1)
REPORTABLE: No
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: No
In
the matter between:
BOKSBURG
STEEL PRESSINGS (PTY) LTD
Applicant
and
THE
CITY OF JOHANNESBURG
First respondent
BRINK
N.O., FLOYD
Second respondent
BRINK,
FLOYD
Third respondent
CITY
POWER JOHANNESBURG SOC LTD
Fourth respondent
MASHABELA
N.O., MARGIN MALOKE
Fifth respondent
MASHABELA,
MARGIN MALOKE
Sixth respondent
MASHAVA
N.O., TSHIFULARO SUDZULUWANI
Seventh respondent
MASHAVA,
TSHIFULARO SUDZULUWANI
Eighth respondent
MKHWANAZI
N.O., ALFRED
Ninth respondent
MKWHANAZI,
ALFRED
Tenth respondent
THE
JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN
POLICE
DEPARTMENT
Eleventh respondent
DLEPU
N.O., SIPHO
Twelfth respondent
DLEPU,
SIPHO
Thirteenth respondent
In
re:
Case no: 2023/130701
In
the matter between:
BOKSBURG
STEEL PRESSINGS (PTY) LTD
Applicant
and
THE
CITY OF JOHANNESBURG
First respondent
BRINK
N.O., FLOYD
Second respondent
BRINK,
FLOYD
Third respondent
This
judgment was delivered by uploading it to the court online digital
database of the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South
Africa,
Johannesburg, and by email to the attorneys of record of the parties
on 28 January 2026.
REASONS
VAN
DER WALT AJ
[1]
This matter came before me during this court’s special
initiative to clear the unopposed motion rolls. The relief
sought
included a declaration that the respondents were in contempt
of an order granted by Senyatsi J on 8 December 2023. The
applicant
(Boksburg Steel) asked also that the respondents be ordered
to pay the costs of the application on the attorney and client scale,
which in effect would have included personal cost orders against
employees of state functionaries. I ordered that the matter
be
removed from the role and that costs be reserved for determination by
the court that ultimately disposes of the matter.
Boksburg
Steel sought reasons for the order. These are the reasons.
[2]
The application concerns a property located in Turffontein, in
the south of Johannesburg. At its core are allegations about
the billing for electricity provided to the property, the
disconnection of electricity to the property and an order
interdicting
the disconnection of electricity to the property.
[3]
The respondents are the City of Johannesburg, the municipal
manager of the City of Johannesburg at the relevant times, City Power
Johannesburg SOC Ltd (City Power), the executive director of City
Power at the relevant times, the current executive director of
City
Power, an employee of City Power, the Johannesburg Metropolitan
Police Department, and the current acting chief of the Johannesburg
Police Department. The municipal manager of the City of
Johannesburg at the relevant times, the executive director of City
Power at the relevant times, the current executive director of City
Power, the employee of City Power, and the current acting chief
of
the Johannesburg Metropolitan Police Department were joined to the
proceedings in both their official and personal capacities.
The
employee of City Power is a respondent in the matter on the basis of
an allegation that he was the one who disconnected the
electricity to
the property in contravention of a court order.
[4]
The true villain of the piece, according to Boksburg Steel’s
papers, is the City of Johannesburg. If the allegations
against
it are accepted by the court ultimately disposing of the application,
the City’s conduct, both in conducting the
litigation and in
respect of Boksburg Steel’s property, would fall far below the
standard for an entity charged with serving
the public. Notices
opposing the relief sought were filed on behalf of all the
respondents, but no answering papers had been
filed at the time of
the hearing. If the City is of the view that it does not owe a
duty, at least to the taxpayer, to answer
the serious allegations
Boksburg Steel makes against it, it should now know that its view is
wrong.
[5]
When counsel rose, I asked them for heads of argument as to
whether the orders sought could follow. Boksburg Steel
persisted
in asking for the orders against all the respondents,
including those cited in their personal capacities. Upon
consideration
I was not convinced that any of these respondents had
proper notice of the relief sought against them, knew that the relief
sought
against them would be granted on the day of the hearing,
understood the serious consequences that would follow upon the order
sought
or for that matter knew that they had an opportunity to
present their cases in court. Hence the order.
Nico
van der Walt
Acting
Judge, Gauteng Division, Johannesburg.
Heard:
17 June 2025
Reasons
28 January 2026
Appearances:
For
the applicant:
Mr
T.H. Skosana
Instructed
by Vermaak Marshall Wellbeloved Inc.
For
the respondents
Mr
Q.M. Dzimba
Instructed
by Madhlopa & Tenga Inc.