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
KWAZULU-NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN
CASE NO. D8220/2023
In the matter between:
STELLDIP 696 (PTY) LTD Applicant
and
ETHEKWINI MUNICIPALITY Respondent
ORDER
The following order shall issue:
1. The rule nisi which was issued by this court on 28 July 2023, is discharged.
2 The applicant is directed to pay the costs of the application on scale B.
JUDGMENT
Chithi J
The issue
[1] The crisp question in this matter is whether the applicant had lodged any
disputes with the respondent as contemplated in terms of s102 of the Local
Government Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 ('the Systems Act'). I will deal with
the content of these provisions later in this judgment.
[2] The applicant had applied for condonation for the late delivery of its practice
note and heads of argument. The respondent opposed this application. However,
despite such opposition and what this court considered to be an unsatisfactory
explanation for the applicant's failure to file its practice note and heads of argument,
I considered that it would serve no useful purpose to refuse the application as the
matter was set down at the instance of the respondent on account of inordinate
delays on the part of the applicant to set it down.
Background
[3] The applicant in the matter is an owner of a commercial shopping centre ('the
shopping centre') situated at 3[...] M[...] Road, Escombe, Queensburgh within the
respondent's jurisdiction. The applicant is leasing units of this property to 8
commercial entities, and this court considers it unnecessary to identify these entities
by name as they are not part of these proceedings. It suffices to say that the
applicant contends that except for 3 of these entities the remainder of these entities
are owned and operated by previously disadvantaged individuals, who are
completely dependent on the income generated from these businesses.
[4] What triggered this application is that on 25 July 2023, the respondent
terminated the electricity supply to this shopping centre allegedly for municipal
services which the applicant owed to the respondent. The amount which is alleged
to have been owing on 30 June 2023 stood at R918 051.88 and on 28 October
2023 at R1 216 508.32 after this application had been instituted.
[5] On 28 July 2023, the applicant sought and was granted an order in the form
of a rule nisi for the restoration of electricity supply to the shopping centre and for
the respondent to be interdicted and restrained from disconnecting electricity supply
to the shopping centre pending the finalisation of the disputes which the applicant
had allegedly lodged with the respondent.
[6] The applicant contended that the respondent unlawfully terminated the
electricity supply in circumstances where it h ad lodged 6 formal disputes with the
respondent on 18 July 2023 as follows:
Query 1 under reference number CSM202307185678
(a) The respondent billed the applicant for meter number 0528599 which was not
on the applicant's property.
Query 2 under reference number CSM202307185684
(b) The applicant contended that in respect of this query there was a dispute
between the applicant and the respondent with regard to the consumption and
meter reading in general. The applicant cited as an example the fact that when the
respondent loaded meter number D792501M, it loaded a 6 digit reading which was
incorrect. This meter only had 5 digits. Therefore, start reading should have been
98323 and end reading when meter was removed was 99597. Usage for the period
9 September 2020 14 December 2022 was only 1274. This reading was in line with
the charges on the new meter. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the
respondent billed the applicant for 103636 usage which was simply impossible.
Query 3 under reference number CSM 2023078689
(c) The applicant contended that the respondent removed the old meter number
0792501M and replaced it with meter number 4570315248. The respondent even
billed the applicant for this new meter on a statement dated 30 June 2023. In July
2023, the respondent harassed the applicant contending that this was not their
meter as they did not install it. The respondent refused to charge the applicant
according to the readings on the new meter which the respondent installed.
Query 4 under reference number CSM202307185690
(d) The applicant contended that it requested the respondent to install a meter
for the ATM.
Query 5 under reference number CSM 202307185692
(e) The applicant contended that it requested the respondent to do a full meter
investigation and check which meter belonged to which shops and then to remove
all unnecessary meters. For example, meter number 2864760 and meter number
89297857 were on site but not on the statement.
Query 6 under reference number CSM202307
(f) The applicant contended that in respect of this query she requested the
applicant to fix dangerous connections which connections constituted a huge fire
hazard.
[7] The respondent is resisting the application and seeks for the discharge of the
rule nisi on the basis that the applicant has failed to make out a case. The
respondent contends that what the applicant had raised with the respondent were
merely queries and not disputes as contemplated in s 102 of the Systems Act.
Further and in any event, each of the queries were resolved.
[8] The respondent responded to the queries in terms by way of a customer
service and investigation report marked as EM3.1 and 3.2 to its answering affidavit.
It responded as follows:
Ad query 1
(a) The meter in respect of which this query was raised is on site and was used for
shop 10. The applicant acknowledged in its replying affidavit that this meter was on
site.
Ad query 2
(b) The respondent contended that meter number 0792501M was installed on
15 May 2002 and was always been a 6-dial meter up to the date of its removal from
site on 14 December 2022. The respondent further pointed out that it could not get
accurate readings from this meter as far back as 8 February 2021. Prior to the
replacement of meter number 0792501M on 14 December 2022, the respondent
captured and accepted disconnection reading of 99597 on the system which gave
electricity consumption of 103636 KWH over a pe riod of 665 days. This electricity
usage was billed and charges for estimated readings credited accordingly on the
statement dated 29 November 2011. The electricity consumption for the period from
6 January 2021 to 22 November 2022 was 103636 kWh = [99597 - 995961]. To
resolve this query, the respondent installed new meter number 45703124185 on 28
August 2023 and then the respondent would then determine a 'fair electricity usage'
based on the readings that would be obtained from the new meter. The customer's
account would then be adjusted for the period from 6 January 2021 to 21 August
2023, based on the daily average obtained from there new meter readings, and this
adjustment would rectify charges for electricity consumption for this period. The
respondent noted the claim that usage for the period 9 September 2020 to 14
December 2022 was 1274. The respondent therefore suggested that the applicant's
claim that electricity usage was 1274 kWh over a period of 826 days was incorrect.
Ad query 3
(c) The respondent contended that there was a meter change which was done
by eThekwini electricity on 14 December 2022. The new meter 45703152483 was
installed replacing the old meter number 0792501M. This meter was replaced with
45703124185 on 22 August 2023, after its terminal burnt. Terminals are used for
connection or termination of wires safely to the meter and these were burnt; that
meter was bypassed by an unknown person (this means that the consumer had
direct supply without being the metered as the me ter was not connected) as per
the technical investigation which was carried out by the respondent.
Ad query 4
(d) In respect of this query, the respondent contended that any meter that is to
be installed on any premises, it is installed on the instruction of the consumer. This
process is initiated by the consumer by submitting a request to eThekwini electricity
for the installation of the new meter on site by using a form titled 'Application for
electrical connection'. This application form has to be submitted to the eThekwini
electricity customer service for approval. eThekwini electricity would then instal the
meter upon payment of the prescribed fee as determined by the engineer. The
customer may, if he or she desires enlist the services of a registered electrical
contract to assist with the process.
Ad query 5
(e) In respect of this query, the respondent contended that it was the
Ad query 5
(e) In respect of this query, the respondent contended that it was the
responsibility of the consumer to do the full meter investigation and check. The
respondent further pointed out that any meter that is to be installed on any
premises, it is installed on the instruction of a customer. Likewise, any meter that is
to be removed from the premises, it must also be removed on the instruction of the
customer. The customer may request the removal of unnecessary meters from the
site using the 'disconnection and removal of electrical equipment' form which, after
completion must be submitted to eThekwini electricity customer services. The
respondent further pointed out that it should be noted that any meter that is installed
on the custom er's premises and it is not used, attracts service charges which the
customer is liable for. This charge is applied irrespective of the electricity which is
consumed on the premises and the account holder is liable for payment of the
service charge, if the meter remains on site.
Ad query 6
(f) In respect of this query, the respondent contended that it was responsible for
the electricity infrastructure up to the meter point. The municipality electricity
infrastructure (meters and service cable up to the consumer's main circuit breaker)
complies with the code of practice and the regulations to the Occupational Health
and Safety Act 1993. The consumer was responsible for electricity infrastructure
from the point of supply (from the meter and beyond).
[9] In conclusion, the respondent stated that after scrutinizing account number
8[...] for Ste lldip (Pty) Ltd it was found that there were discrepancies in the
electricity meter readings for reference number E9623882 and E9623888 which
resulted in incorrect charges for electricity usage to the account. The customer's
account would be adjusted accordingly as per the provisions of section 17 (5) of the
eThekwini electricity bylaws. The adjustments to be made would be reflected in the
October statement.
[10] The respondent had attached to its founding affidavit, the relevant
application which it contended the applicant ought to have used in lodging a
complaint.
application which it contended the applicant ought to have used in lodging a
complaint.
[11] In reply, the applicant contended that the respondent had a duty to provide
the applicant and its tenants with a 14 days' notice of the intended termination of
services reiterating and bolstering the initial point which it made fleetingly in its
founding affidavit. Additionally, the applicant contended that in its answering
affidavit, the respondent was elevating form over substance It pointed out that the
outcomes from the two reports from the investigations the respondent
commissioned, confirmed disputes as opposed to merely queries. Save for the first
query, the applicant essentially merely joined issue with regard to the other queries
reiterating its version and contending that all the other queries remained
outstanding. Lastly, the applicant contended that on its own version the respondent
conceded that there were discrepancies regarding the incorrect billing of the
applicant's account which the respondent undertook to rectify in the future.
[12] In a further affidavit which the respondent delivered, it contended that an
onsite inspection which it conducted after the delivery of the applicant's replying
affidavit, revealed the following:
(a) That the ATM was operational notwithstanding, that there were no records of
a meter for the ATM in the premises.
(b) In respect of query 6, there were different wires compared to the wires
appearing in the photographs attached as RA 1 to the applicant's affidavit. The
respondent contended that this suggested that the wires were stripped and
connected in a temporary or illegal manner.
The parties' submissions
[13] At the outset of her argument, Ms Moodley abandoned the applicant's
reliance on spoliation in these proceedings. Ms Moodley relying on the case of
Joseph and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others 1 argued that the
respondent's failure to provide the applicant and its tenants with 14 days' pre -
termination notice in terms of by -law 10 (1) (b) was dispositive of the matter.
However, she never went so far as to suggest that on this ground alone this court
should confirm the rule nisi which this court issued on 28 July 2023.
should confirm the rule nisi which this court issued on 28 July 2023.
1 Joseph and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others 2010 (4) SA 55 para 61 ('Joseph')
[14] Ms Moodley went on to argue that the applicant substantially complied with
bylaw 16 (1) which required a person who was challenging the correctness or
accuracy of any amount due and payable by such person to lodge it in writing.
Relying on Akani Casiono (Pty) Ltd 2, she pointed out that the respondent's policy
which required a person who wished to lodge a dispute in respect of an account to
submit it in writing on the prescribed form to the authorised official, could not be
allowed to override by -law 16 (1) which merely required disputes in respect of an
account to be in writing.
[15] Furthermore, Ms Moodley relying on Regona Properties (Pty) Ltd and
Another v City of Johannesburg 3 , argued that as the applicant had raised the issue
of possible inaccurate readings of the meter, the onus was on the respondent to
show that the meter readings were correct.
[16] Moreover, Ms Moodley argued that the applicant's disputes did not merely
raise generalised complaints. The applicant challenged the correctness and
accuracy of specific charges, meter readings, consumption figures, the safety and
legality of electrical infrastructure. She pointed out that the respondent's own
investigation report confirmed the discrepancies in meter readings and billing. This
on its own validated the existence of disputes as contemplated in s 102 of the
Systems Act.
[17] Conversely, Mr Broster for the respondent sought to distinguish Joseph to
this case. He pointed out that in Joseph the applicants were tenants and not an
account holder like in this case, who had the benefit of receiving a tax invoice on
every month basis. He argued that the tax invoice from the respondent specifically
drew the applicant's attention to its account being in arrears and that should
payment not be made, the respondent would institute legal proceedings.
2 Akani Casiono (Pty) Ltd (252/1999) [2001] ZASCA 59 (17 May 2001) para 17.
2 Akani Casiono (Pty) Ltd (252/1999) [2001] ZASCA 59 (17 May 2001) para 17.
3 Regona Properties (Pty) Ltd and Another v City of Johannesburg (2023-074510) [2023] ZAGPJHC
877 (4 August 2023) para 53 (Regona Properties').
[18] Mr Broster went on to argue that all the queries which the applicant made do
not refer to a 'specified amount' or 'portion of a debt' as contemplated in section 102
(2) of the Systems Act. To this end, he relied on what is set out in paragraphs 22
and 28 of Body Corporate Croftdene Mall v Ethekwini Municipality . 4 I do not
propose to repeat verbatim what is set out in those paragraphs, except to
paraphrase what the Supreme Court of Appeal said namely that the dispute must
relate to a 'specific amount' claimed by the municipality.
[19] Moreover, Mr Broster argued that the fact that the respondent discovered
problems and corrected them does not elevate those queries to disputes. Lastly, Mr
Broster argued that if this court had regard to the applicant's conduct it was
demonstrative of a ratepayer who was intent on not paying its account. He cited the
following as examples from which this can be inferred:
(a) Despite being directed by an order of this court to make payment of R1 5 000
per month on or before the 30 th of every month and every consecutive month
thereafter, until the final order was made in this matter, according to the tax invoice
dated 29 August 2023, the applicant only made payment of R 12 795.00.
(b) Despite bringing the application on urgent basis, it failed to set it down for a
hearing.
(c) The applicant failed to deliver its practice note and heads of argument
timeously.
[20] The question whether the queries as raised by the applicant constitute a
dispute as contemplated in terms of s 102 of the Systems Act, will be considered
against the relevant legislative framework. This question is what both parties in
broad terms agree was the issue that this court must determine. However, during
argument, Ms Moodley for the applicant argued that the further issue which this
court was required to determine, was whether the respondent was required to give
the applicant a pretermination notice.
the applicant a pretermination notice.
4 Body Corporate Croftdene Mall v Ethekwini Municipality 2012 (4) SA 169 (SCA) ('Croftderie Mall')
[21] The legislative framework which is applicable to this case is common cause
between the parties. I will therefore restrict myself only to portions of such
framework which have a bearing to this case.
[22] Section 102 of the System Act provides that:
'Accounts
(1) A municipality may—
(a) consolidate any separate accounts of persons liable for payments to the
municipality;
(b) credit a payment by such person against any account of that person; and
(c) implement any of the debt collection and credit control measures provided
for in this Chapter in relation to any arrears on any of the accounts of such a
person.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply where there is a dispute between the
municipality and a person referred to in that subsection concerning any specific
amount claimed by the municipality from that person.’
[23] The respondent as it is required in terms of s 96(b) of the Systems Act
adopted, maintained and implemented a credit control and debt collection policy.
Additionally, in terms of s 98(1) of the Systems Act the respondent also adopted by -
laws to give effect to such policy, its implementation and enforcement.
[24] The relevant excerpts from the respondent's credit control and debt
collection policy which are pertinent to the determination of this matter are various
sub-clauses of clause 24 which are as follows:
'DISPUTES
241 Should any dispute arise with respect to the amount owing, the debtor
must continue to make regular payments based on the average
charges for the preceding three (3) months prior to the dispute, plus
interest where applicable.
24.3 A Person who wishes to lodge a dispute in respect of an account must
submit the dispute in writing, on the prescribed form, to the
Authorised Official as defined in this Policy stating the reasons for
such dispute and any relevant facts, information or representation
which the Authorised Official should consider to resolve the dispute.
24.4 The dispute must be submitted within twenty -one (21) days of the
account. If a dispute is raised after this period, it will be treated as an
enquiry, the account will not be suspended, and normal credit control
procedures will apply.
24.5 The dispute must relate to a specific amount on the account.
Amounts not in dispute must be paid in full. If the amounts not in dispute
remain unpaid, services may be disconnected.
24.6 A query is not regarded as a dispute. A query is a verbal inquiry whereas
a dispute must be in writing and lodged with the relevant municipal
department or section.
24.8 The person contemplated in Clause 24.1, must provide the Authorised
Official with the account alleged to be in dispute, which includes
incorrect readings, misallocation of payments, incorrect tariffs charged
and incorrect property values used and any other relevant information
that may be required.
24.9 The Authorised Official:
(a) May investigate or cause the dispute to be investigated within
thirty (30) days, or as soon as possible after such dispute is
received;
(b) May call for additional information [documentation from a
customer who disputes an account;
(c) Must inform the person in question, promptly, in writing, of his
or her finding after conclusion of the investigation; and (d) Must
take a decision, based on the spirit of the Policy.
24.10 A dispute submitted above shall not stop or defer the continuation of
any credit control and legal procedure already instituted for the
recovery of arrear payments relating to such dispute.
24.11 A person whose rights are affected by the decision of the Authorised
Official, may request the CFO to review the decision of the Authorised
Official as contemplated in Clause 24.2 of this Policy. The decision of
the CFO shall be subject to the right of appeal in terms of Section 62
of the Systems Act. A written
notice of the appeal and reasons must be lodged with the City
Manager in a prescribed form, within twenty-one (21) days of the date
of notification of the decision by the CFO.
2414 An account must be paid in full regardless of any query that may be
raised in respect of the account Once the query is resolved and a
decision is reached, such account will be credited or debited
accordingly.
[25] In the respondent's by -laws the relevant clauses which are pertinent to the
determination of this matter are clauses 10(1)(b), and 16. Clause 10(1)(b) reads:
'Termination of service agreements
(1) Subject to sections 17 and 26, the Municipality may terminate a service
agreement if—
(b) the Municipality has given written notice of not less than 14 days to
the customer, if the customer concerned has breached or failed to
comply with any specific term or condition of the service agreement,
and has failed to remedy such breach or rectify such failure after
service on such customer of a notice to do so in terms of section 11 of
this By-law.'
[26] Clause 16 on the other hand reads:
'16. Disputes in respect of accounts rendered by the Municipality
(1) A person must lodge a written dispute with the Municipality to challenge
the correctness or accuracy of any amount due and payable by such
person reflected in an account rendered by the Municipality in terms of
this By-law: Provided that such dispute must be lodged with the
Municipality before or on the due date for payment specified in the
account concerned.
(2) A person must, pending resolution of the dispute, continue to make
regular monthly payments in respect of rates, if applicable, or in respect
of any municipal service, as the case may be, based on the average
monthly fees for the preceding three months prior to the dispute arising,
plus interest if applicable, until the dispute is resolved.
(3) Where a person fails to lodge a dispute within the period mentioned in
subsection
(1), any correspondence received from the person after such period
concerning the correctness or accuracy of an account, will be treated as
an enquiry and—
(a) the account will not be suspended; and
(b) such enquiry must be accompanied by the payment of at least
an amount equal to the average amount per month that was due and
payable in respect of the municipal service concerned during the
preceding three months.
(4)…….
(5) Any amount not in dispute must be paid in full by the person concerned
and municipal services may be disconnected or restricted where such
amounts remain unpaid.
(6) The Municipality must register the dispute or enquiry and take
reasonable steps to ensure that the dispute or enquiry is addressed
within a reasonable period.
(7) The Municipality must—
(a) investigate or cause the dispute to be investigated within 30
days, or as soon as possible after such dispute is received; and
(b) inform the person, in writing, of his or her finding as soon as
possible after conclusion of the investigation, instructing that
either such person's account will be credited with an amount
found to have been overpaid or, alternatively, that any amount
found to be due and payable must, subject to section 23, be
paid within a reasonable period from the date on which the
person concerned is notified thereof, unless an appeal is
lodged within that period in terms of subsection (8).
(8) Except for instances where the right of appeal is specifically afforded to
a person in terms of any other law, a person may, subject to section 35,
lodge an appeal in writing with the municipal manager in terms of
section 62 of the Systems Act against a decision referred to in
subsection (7), within 21 days of the date of notification of the decision.
(9) The Municipality must inform the person concerned in writing of the
decision on the appeal, instructing that any amount found to be overpaid
will be credited to such person's account or, alternatively, that any
amount found to be due and payable must be paid within seven days
from the date on which the person is notified thereof.
Was the respondent required to give the applicant 14 days pre-termination
notice
[27] Before terminating the services to the applicant's shopping centre, the
respondent was required to give the applicant 14 days' pre -termination notice in
terms of by -law 10 (1) (b). While the applicant had raised this issue in its papers
albeit tersely it is unnecessary for this court to pronounce on this issue, either on its
own or collectively with other issues. This is so for three reasons. First, the
applicant's case was always anchored on the respondent's unlawful termination of
the applicant's electricity supply on the face of what the applicant considered to be
disputes, which it allegedly raised with the respondent This is also apparent from
the order of this court which was granted on 28 July 2023. Second, while the
applicant has tersely raised this issue in its papers, when the respondent delivered
a statement of common cause issues and issues in dispute, in terms of practice
directive 9.4.2, excluding this as an issue, the applicant never delivered a
countervailing statement identifying it as one o f the issues to be determined by this
court. Third, and most importantly, in its heads of argument which were only
delivered on 3 February 2025, the applicant also never raised it as an issue for
determination by this court. It seems to me that the applicant's belated attempt to
resuscitate this point is aimed at preventing the inevitable, the discharge of the rule
nisi.
nisi.
[28] Based on what then prevailed as a potential threat on the applicant's rights
and interests, this court intervened and as it is apparent from the court order itself it
did not intervene based on the respondent's failure to give the applicant the pre -
termination notice. There is therefore no reason why this court should confirm or
discharge the rule nisi based on an ancillary issue which was not the basis upon
which the order was granted. Even if I am wrong on this point, I take solace on the
fact that in the event that the respondent in future got tempted to terminate services
to the applicant's shopping centre without giving the requisite notice, I have no
doubt that this court when called upon, would not hesitate to intervene.
Whether the applicant had lodged any dispute
[29] The question of what constitutes a dispute was authoritatively resolved in
Croftdene Mall. The Supreme Court of Appeal stated that s 102 (2) of the Systems
Act required that the dispute must relate to a 'specified amount' claimed by a
municipality. I agree with Mr Broster that none of the queries which the applicant
made refer to a 'specified amount' or a 'portion of a debt' as contemplated in s 102
(2) of the Systems Act. For this reason, the rule nisi which was issued by this court
on 28 July 2023, falls to be dismissed.
[30] The lodgment of a written dispute with the municipality in the prescribed form
as contemplated in clause 24.3 of the respondent's credit control and debt collection
policy is not without significance. Once the dispute has been lodged, there are
several steps which kick in and those steps are as follows:
(a) The municipality is required to register the dispute or enquiry.
(b) The municipality is required to take reasonable steps to ensure that the
dispute or enquiry is addressed within a reasonable time.
(c) The municipality must investigate or cause the dispute to be investigated
within 30 days, or as soon as possible after such dispute is received; and
(d) The municipality must inform the person, in writing, of his or her finding as soon
as possible after conclusion of the investigation, instructing that either such person's
account will be credited with an amount found to have been overpaid or,
alternatively, that any amount found to be due and payable must, subject to section
23, be paid within a reasonable period from the date on which the person
23, be paid within a reasonable period from the date on which the person
concerned is notified thereof, unless an appeal is lodged within that period in terms
of subsection (8).
[31] The refusal by a party to lodge the dispute even when armed with a court
order such as the applicant has done, is self -defeating in that it prevents the
resolution of what might not just be queries but, genuine disputes if they were fully
motivated as required in terms of the respondent's policy. In addition, it prevents the
resolution of what might be disputes in a cost-effective manner.
[32] A party cannot bypass and simply refuse to use a mechanism which is
designed to resolve disputes expeditiously and co -effectively in the hope that the
court will find in its favour especially when it is armed with a court order which
prevents immediate harm in the intervening period. In my view, there is no reason
why the applicant should not exhaust the internal remedies provided in the relevant
legislative framework of the respondent, if it genuinely has disputes as
contemplated in s 102 (2) of the Systems Act.
[33] One last point which warrants mention is the applicant's reliance on Regona
Properties. This case is distinguishable to this one. In Regona Properties , the
applicants had raised disputes in the prescribed form with the municipality.
Additionally, the respondent had stated in its affidavit in that matter that the tax
invoices which were supplied to the applicant constituted the actual reading of the
consumption. The respondent in this case has not made any positive statement
along those lines and therefore, did not attract any onus. For all these reasons the
applicant had not satisfied the necessary requisites entitling it to a final interdict.
Accordingly, the applicants' application must fail.
Costs
[34] The general rule is that costs should follow the event. I do not see any
reason why I should deviate from this rule.
[35] In the result I grant the following order:
1. The rule nisi which was issued by this court on 28 July 2023, is discharged.
2. The applicant is directed to pay the costs of the application on scale B.
Chithi, J
APPEARANCES
For Applicant Moodley CJ
Instructed by VAN DER WALT ATTORNEYS
Tel: 012 004 0344
Email: clarike@rvdwattorne .co.za
Ref: CH/A155 c/o: LGR ATTORNEYS
Unit 1-3 Ridge Building
39 Vuna Close
Umhlanga
Email: sraioo@lgr.co.za
Ref: S RAJOO/AN
For First Respondent Broster JP
Instructed by DWARIKA, NAIDOO & COMPANY
Third Floor, Tower B
The Ridge, 8 Torsvale Crescent
Umhlanga
Tel: 031 306 4809
Email: june@dwarikanaidoo.co.za
Ref: ND/E23009/ETH
Date of hearing 09 February 2026
Date of judgment 10 February 2026