IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, MAKHANDA)
Not reportable
CASE NO. 2026-013729
In the matter between:
PHATUXOLO SMAILE N.O. First applicant
PETE BROWN N.O. Second applicant
and
MAKANA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY First respondent
MUNICIPAL MANAGER OF THE
MAKANA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Second respondent
MABONA CIVILS AND PLANT HIRE CC Third respondent
___________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
___________________________________________________________________
LAING J
[1] This is an urgent application for an interdict , preventing the first respondent
(‘the municipality’) from giving effect to the award of a tender , pending the outcome
of a review application.
Background
[2] The applicants are trustees of the Makana Development Trust (‘the trust’). In
August 2025, the municipality advertised a tender for the re habilitation of
infrastructure damaged after heavy rains. It indicated that it would evaluate bids in
two stages: a functionality assessment with a minimum score requirement of 70%,
followed by an assessment of price and achievement of the specific goals
contemplated under the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act 5 of 2000
(‘PPPFA’). The trust submitted a bid, only to learn that the municipality had cancelled
the tender. A fresh tender w as advertised, with a closing date of 30 October 2025 .
Once again, the trust submitted a bid.
[3] The second respondent (‘the municipal manager’) informed the trust on 20
November 2025 that its bid had been unsuccessful. This was because ‘it did not
submit information of the foreman.’ 1 The trust lodged a formal objection on 2
December 2025 . The municipal manager responded the following day , saying that
‘the site foreman did not meet the required experience for the project.’ In a letter sent
on 4 December 2025 to the municipality’s Supply Chain Management (‘SCM’) Unit,
the trust raised concerns about the evaluation process. The municipality,
notwithstanding, awarded the tender to the third respondent (‘Mabona Civils’) on 15
December 2025 in the amount of R 25 574 655. On the same date, the SCM Unit
explained to the trust how it had evaluated its bid. The trust instructed its attorneys to
write to the municipality on 22 December 2025, demanding it to withdraw,
alternatively suspend, the appointment of Mabona Civils and to deal with the trust’s
objection. The municipal manager replied on 23 December 2025 , setting out the
findings of the municipality’s Legal Services Department . The trust consequently
instituted proceedings on 23 January 2026.
[4] In its answering papers, the municipality explained that National Treasury
[4] In its answering papers, the municipality explained that National Treasury
previously provided grant funding in the amount of R 29 110 000 for the repair of
roads in Makhanda. This was c onditional upon the completion of the work by 31
August 2025. A delay in the implementation of the project resulted in the
municipality’s application for the ‘roll over’ of the funding ; National Treasury
1 Sic.
subsequently approved the request, but allocated a reduced amount of R 25 700 000
which was conditional upon completion of the work by 31 March 2026.
[5] The municipality went on to assert that the trust’s bid had been entirely non -
responsive. There was no basis upon which it could have been evaluated in relation
to either functionality or price and specific goals . If the work was delayed, moreover,
then the municipality would be unable to repair the roads; any further ‘roll over’ of
funding was unlikely. The project ha s, in any event, already commenced . The
municipality has handed over the site to Mabona Civils, which has engaged with
local labourers and started acquiring the materials needed for the work.
Issues to be decided
[6] The first issue to be decided is whether the applicants have established a
case for urgency. If the court is satisfied in that regard, then the second issue is
whether the applicants have met the requirements for interim relief.
[7] A brief overview of the relevant principles follows.
Legal framework
[8] Regarding urgency, 6 (12) (a) of the Uniform Rules of Court (‘URC’) grants
wide discretionary powe rs to a court when dealing with urgent matters. The court
must, however, exercise such powers in accordance with well-established principles.
In Luna Meubel Vervaardigers (Edms) Bpk v Makin and Another (t/a Makin’s
Furniture Manufacturers),2 the court stated that practitioners must carefully analyse
the facts of each case to determine whether a greater or lesser degree of relaxation
of the rules was required. The degree of relaxation should not be greater than the
exigency that the case deman ded. It must be commensurate therewith. 3
Subsequently, i n IL & B Marcow Caterers (Pty) Ltd v Greatermans SA Ltd and
2 1977 (4) SA 135 (W).
3 At 137E–F.
Another; Aroma Inn (Pty) Ltd v Hypermarkets (Pty) Ltd and Another ,4 the court held
that its power to abridge the prescribed periods and to accelerate the hearing must
be exercised with judicial discretion. The applicants were required to show ‘sufficient
and satisfactory grounds’. There were three major considerations: (a) the prejudice
that the applicant might suffer by having to wait for a hearing in the ordinary course;
(b) the prejudice that other litigants might suffer if the application was given
preference; and (c) the prejudice that the respondent might suffer by the abridgment
of the prescribed periods and an early hearing.5
[9] The provisions of rule 6 (12) ( b) must not be overlooked. An applicant must
demonstrate, explicitly, the circumstances that make the matter urgent . Furthermore,
the applicant must give the reasons for why he or she would not obtain substantial
redress at a hearing in due course.
[10] The requirements for an interim interdict were set out more than 100 years
ago in Setlegelo v Setlegelo.6 They remain relevant and comprise the following: (a) a
prima facie right; (b) a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm if the interim
relief is not granted and the ultimate relief is eventually granted ; ( c) a balance of
convenience in favour of the granting of the interim relief ; and (d) the absence of any
other satisfactory remedy.7 The test must, however, be interpreted within the context
of our constitutional dispensation. This was addressed in National Treasury and
Others v Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance a nd Others (‘OUTA’),8 where the
applicant questioned its suitability, urging the Constitutional Court to resort to another
standard or to adapt the test when the grant of an interim interdict trespassed on the
exclusive domain of the executive or the legislature. 9 The court, per Moseneke DCJ,
referred to Gool v Minister of Justice and Another, 10 where a full bench had been
referred to Gool v Minister of Justice and Another, 10 where a full bench had been
called upon to restrain the minister , pendente lite, from exercising certain statutory
powers. In that case, Ogilvie-Thompson J found that the court had jurisdiction to
entertain the application, but it would only be exercised in exceptional circumstances
4 1981 (4) SA 108 (C).
5 At 112H–113A.
6 1914 AD 221.
7 At 227.
8 2012 (6) SA 223 (CC).
9 Para 42.
10 1955 (2) SA 682 (C).
and when a strong case had been made out for relief.11 Moseneke DCJ went on to
say that:
‘ . . . The common law annotation to the Setlegelo test is that courts grant temporary
restraining orders against the exercise of statutory power only in exceptional cases and
when a strong case for that relief has been made out. Beyond the common law, separation
of powers is an even more vital tenet of our constitutional democracy. This means that the
Constitution requires courts to ensure that all branches of government act within the law.
However, courts in turn must refrain from entering the exclusive terrain of the executive and
the legislative branches of government unless the intrusion is mandated by the Constitution
itself.’12
[11] The learned judge continued:
‘ . . . It seems to me that it is unnecessary to fashion a new test for the grant of an interim
interdict. The Setlegelo test, as adapted by case law , continues to be a handy and ready
guide to the bench and practitioners alike in the grant of interdicts in busy magistrates’ courts
and high courts. However, now the test must be applied cognisant of the normative scheme
and democratic principles that underpin our Constitution . This means that when a court
considers whether to grant an interim interdict it must do s o in a way that promotes the
objects, spirit, and purport of the Constitution.’13
[12] The above principles are relevant to the respondents ’ argument in the present
matter, as will be discussed further . The most immediate issue for determination is
the question of urgency.
Urgency
[13] The municipality awarded the tender to Mabona Civils on 15 December 2025 .
A week later, on 22 December 2025, the applicants’ attorneys requested an
undertaking that the tender would not be implemented . The municipal manager
11 At 689B–C.
12 OUTA, para 44.
13 Para 45.
replied on 23 December 2025, explaining the municipality’s position but refusing to
provide any undertaking. The applicant s launched their application on 23 January
2026, a month later . By that time, the municipality had already taken steps to
implement the tender, spurred on, no doubt, by the concern that it would lose its
grant funding if the project was stalled.
[14] Whereas the applicant s can be criticized for a certain measure of delay,
occasioned by the intervening year-end closure of businesses and professional
practices, this was , realistically, no more than two to t hree weeks. The municipality
was aware of the applicant s’ intentions but proceeded, nonetheless. As counsel for
the applicants pointed out, the tender involves a time-bound project. Its
implementation could advance to a stage where the practical consequences of the
award c annot be meaningfully reversed. The court is satisfied that the applicant s
would not obtain substantial redress at a hearing in due course.
[15] The truncated tim eframe for the filing of papers was , fu rthermore, not
unreasonable. It was, with reference to Luna Meubels, appropriate for the exigency
that the case demanded . Importantly, the respondents made no complaint that they
had been prejudiced by the abridged periods and an early hearing. The matter was
enrolled for the end of a normal motion court day , posing no prejudice to other
litigants. The applicants cannot be faulted for a lack of urgency.
Prima facie right
[16] It is trite that, in tender disputes, private part ies such as the applicants have
an inherent right to public procurement decision -making that is lawful, reasonable,
and procedurally fair. 14 For the right to attract the protection of an interim interdict,
however, the applicants must demonstrate that there was no basis for the
municipality’s disqualification of their bid during the functionality stage and that it
ought to have reached the assessment stage for evaluation on price and specific
ought to have reached the assessment stage for evaluation on price and specific
goals under the PPPFA . This would trigger an enquiry into the remaining
14 The right is derived from section 33 (1) of the Constitution.
requirements for interim relief . T he existence of a prima facie right serves as a
gateway.
[17] In the present matter, the sequence of the parties’ correspondence is of some
importance. The municipal manager initially informed the applicants that their bid had
been unsuccessful because ‘it did not submit information of the foreman.’ In their
formal objection, the applicants pointed out that the reason given w as factually
incorrect; the trust had set out details of the f oreman to be allocated to the project,
including information about her competency, and supporting documents. The
municipal manager subsequently elaborated on the earlier reason , indicating that
‘the site foreman did not meet the required experience for the project.’ He enclosed a
table that purported to ex plain how the municipality’s bid evaluation committee
(‘BEC’) had determined the extent of the foreman’s experience ; it depicted the
projects with which she had been involved, the duration thereof, and the total
number of months worked .15 This resulted in a calculation of 84 months or seven
years, which was less than the ten years required. To this, the applicants contended
that the municipality had referred only to the number of months worked on specific
projects, rather than the duration of the foreman’s overall employment ; the
municipality had failed to consider the cumulative experience of the individual in
question. The SCM Unit responded that the same method of calculation had been
used for all the bids received. It went on to state that:
‘The method looked at the number of months/years of experience in order to obtain a total
number of years required for the project based on the relevant exper ience required in line
with the requirements of this bid . . . It should be noted that a criterion is set for each project
and is applied in line with the requirements of the bid. Where the personnel has not worked
or there was a break in experience requir ed, this cannot be accounted for as there was a
or there was a break in experience requir ed, this cannot be accounted for as there was a
break in service.’
[18] The response failed to clarify for the applicants how and why the BEC had
determined the foreman’s experience . They drew attention to the BEC’s previous
allocation of full points for the trust’s key personnel, including the foreman, when the
15 The table was based on the curriculum vitae supplied for the foreman, Ms Martha Makena. This
accompanied the applicants’ bid.
tender had originally been evaluated , prior to its cancellation. The applicants
consequently repeated their earlier request for the BEC’s scoresheets,
recommendations, and related documents ; they mentioned, too, that their formal
objection had yet to be addressed. At this stage, however, the municipality adopted a
different approach. Relying on what it termed a ‘review’ conducted by its Legal
Services Department, it informed the applicants that the trust ’s bid was non-
responsive. This was because only one of the tru stees, ie the first applicant , had
completed the Declaration of Interest -form (‘MBD 4’) ; furthermore, neither the site
agent nor the foreman was employed by the trust, contrary to the tender
requirements. Consequently, said the municipal manager, the bid should never have
been submitted for evaluation in relation to functionality.
[19] The tender data contained in the applicants’ bid , attached to the founding
papers, included a table with the criteria for the determination o f functionality. The
relevant item read as follows:
3. Experience of key staff: experience of site foreman in the current scope of work 16
Site foreman with Matric and minimum of 10 years
of relevant experience
10 10
Site foreman with no Matric but with minimum of 10
years of relevant experience
5
[20] The first column represented the total number of points that could be allocated
for the criterion in question , while the second column represent ed the difference
between the possible allocations available, depending on secondary education and
years of experience. There were no sub-criteria. Disappointingly, t here was no
indication of what would qualify as ‘relevant experience’ and how the duration thereof
would be calculated. From the in formation enclosed for the trust’s nominated
foreman, it appears, on the face of it, that she had at least 22 years’ experience in
the construction sector. This must be contrasted with the BEC’s determination of
16 Sic.
seven years, based on ly on the duration of the projects stipulated in the foreman’s
curriculum vitae.
[21] The argument adopted by the respondents in their answering papers was that
the trust could only have submitted a bid via its trustees, acting jointly. It failed to do
so. Consequently, its bid was non -responsive, depriving the trust of any right to the
evaluation or adjudication thereof. The difficulty with this, however, is that the
argument does not coincide with the original reasons for the BEC’s decision to
disqualify the bid. From the municipal manager’s correspondence, it is apparent that
the bid was unsuccessful because ‘ [the trust] did not submit information of the
foreman.’ The municipal manager later clarified this, saying that ‘the site foreman did
not meet the required experience for the project.’ From the information supplied, it is
evident that the BEC accepted the bid for evaluation of its functionality in terms of
the first stage, but disqualified it for evaluation of pric e and specific goals in terms of
the second stage based on the BEC’s determination of the nominated foreman’s
experience. This is entirely different from the reasons set out in the answering
papers.
[22] In Jicama 17 (Pty) Ltd v West Coast District Municipalit y,17 Cleaver J held ,
within the context of a tender dispute, that the respondent should not be allowed to
supplement the basis on which its previous decision was taken . The reasons were
apparent from English case law. 18 Whereas a court can elucidate evidence or (in
exceptional circumstances) correct or add to the reasons, i t should be very cautious
about doing so. This was because the purpose of reasons was to inform parties why
they had won or lost, enabling them to assess whether they had any ground for
challenging an adverse decision. To admit ‘wholesale amendment or reve rsal’ of the
stated reasons was inimical to such purpose. 19 Cleaver J stated that another reason
stated reasons was inimical to such purpose. 19 Cleaver J stated that another reason
why not to allow the respondent to supplement its reasons was that, in otherwise
doing so, it would convert the applicant’s review application, brought on narr ow
17 2006 (1) SA 116 (C).
18 R v Westminster City Council, Ex parte Ermakov [1996] 2 All ER 302 (CA),
19 At 315h–316d.
grounds, into a full -blown review of the respondent’s decision. This would be
‘palpably unfair.’20
[23] The Supreme Court of Appeal applied the dictum in Jicama in Van Zyl and
Others v Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others .21 It also referred
thereto i n National Lotteries Board and Others v South African Education and
Environment Project,22 where Cachalia JA noted that the position in English case law
was to the effect that the failure to give proper or adequate reasons for a decision
would ordinarily render it void . It could not be validated by different reasons given
afterwards, even if they showed that the original decis ion may have been justified ;
the later reasons were not the true reasons for the decision but rather an ‘ ex post
facto rationalization of a bad decision’. 23 The court did not decide whether the
position was the same in South African law. It found, nevertheless, that the
appellant’s failure to have exercised its discretion properly or at all c ould not be
remedied ‘by giving different reasons after the fact .’24 This seems, subsequently, to
have become the accepted principle.25
[24] On the face of it, the applicants’ bid should not have been disqualified. It ought
to have proceeded for further evaluation. Consequently, the court is satisfied that the
applicants have established the necessary gateway for an enquiry into the remaining
requirements, viz a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm, a favourable
balance of convenience, and the absence of any other satisfactory remedy.
The remaining requirements
20 Jicama, paras 11 and 12.
21 2008 (3) SA 294 (SCA), para 55.
22 2012 (4) SA 504 (SCA).
23 Para 27.
24 Para 28. See, too, the discussion in C Hoexter and G Penfold Administrative Law in South Africa 3 ed
(2021) at 652–3.
25 In this regard, see Zuma v Democratic Alliance and Others 2018 (1) SA 200 (SCA), para 24 ; Umgeni
Water v Sembcorp Siza Water (Pty) Ltd 2020 (2) SA 450 (SCA), para 52. The High Court adopted a different
approach (incorrectly, with respect) in Zweni v Road Accident Fund and Others 2022 (6) SA 639 (WCC) ,
paras 26–7.
[25] The time -bound nature of the project was highlighted in the discussion
pertaining to urgency. There is every indication, on the papers, that the respondents
have commenced with the implementation of the project and will continue until
completion for fear of losing their grant funding. In City of Cape Town v South African
National Roads Agency and Others ,26 Binns-Ward J stated that effective remedies
should be available for the breach of a constitutional right. Evidence that this would
be thwarted if interim relief was not forthcoming was a relevant consideration under
the concepts of irreparable harm and the balance of convenience. 27 In this division,
Eksteen J observed recently, in SNR Electrical CC v George Local Municipality ,28
that the refusal of an interim interdict may result in an applicant’s being unable, on
review, to obtain the relief that he or she seeks. This would be so in a tender dispute,
where the delivery of goods or the construction of works during review proceedings
would mean that a significant part of the tender would no longer be available . The
failure to issue an interdict in such circumstances would give rise to harm. 29 The
same principles apply in the present matter. There is a real risk, on the papers, that
the continued implementation of the tender will render any final relief entirely hollow
if interim relief is not granted.
[26] Turning to the balance of convenience, the respondents argued that the
matter entailed the potential restraint of the exercise of statutory powers in relation to
the provision of municipal services . With reference to Gool, they pointed out that the
court could only grant interim relief when there were exceptional circumstances and
when a strong case had been made out for the relief sought. 30 The Constitutional
Court held in OUTA, moreover, that when a court weighs up the balance of
convenience, it may not fail to consider the probable impact of the restraining order
convenience, it may not fail to consider the probable impact of the restraining order
on the constitutional and statutory powers and duties of the organ of state . Such an
enquiry must have proper regard to ‘separation of powers harm .’ A temporary
restraint in such circumstances may be granted ‘only in the clearest of cases .’31 The
26 2013 JDR 1022 (WCC).
27 Para 78.
28 2025 JDR 4426 (ECMk).
29 Para 16.
30 At 689C.
31 OUTA, paras 46 and 47.
court subsequently found, in Economic Freedom Fighters v Gordhan and Others ,32
that the above test made it necessary to ‘peek into the grounds of review’ in the main
application and to assess their strength. The granting of interim relief which
prevented the exercise of a statutory power could only be done in exceptional
circumstances.33
[27] The decision in OUTA has attracted considerable academic attention. Hoexter
and Pen fold suggest that the ‘clearest of cases’ test should not apply to all cases
involving the possible granting of interim relief to restrain the exercise of statutory
power but only to those that raise special separation-of-powers concerns , such as
would be encountered within the context of executive policymaking.34 Similarly, Van
Loggerenberg comments that OUTA is not authority for the proposition that interim
interdicts against any exercise of public power must meet the ‘clearest of cases’
standard.35
[28] In Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd v Vaal River Development Association (Pty) Ltd
and Others ,36 the Constitutional Court considered the impact of OUTA on the
balance of convenience requirement. It remarked, per Unterhalter AJ, that an
important consideration in OUTA had been whether the harm apprehended by the
applicant amounted to a breach of one or more fundamental rights warranted by the
Bill of Rights. In that regard, the court had been required to intrude into a ‘policy -
laden and polycentric decision of the executive’ concerning the ordering of public
resources; this lay ‘in the heartland of executive -government function and domain’. 37
Unterhalter AJ found that the fact that the harm grounding the interim interdict sought
amounted to a breach of one or more fundamental rights ‘tempers the impact of what
may otherwise be too stringent a test’.38 The learned judge continued as follows:
‘OUTA must be read in the context of the fact that what was at issue there was a highly
‘OUTA must be read in the context of the fact that what was at issue there was a highly
policy-laden decision by a member of the executive arm of government and violations of
fundamental rights protected in the Bill of Rights were not at issue. In the main it is those two
considerations that informed the court’s final decision. I believe that the role to be played by
32 2020 (6) SA 325 (CC).
33 Para 42.
34 Hoexter and Penfold, n 24 above, at 806–7.
35 D E van Loggerenberg Erasmus: Superior Court Practice RS 28 (2025) D6–30.
36 2023 (4) SA 325 (CC).
37 Paras 300–1.
38 Para 302.
this factor must depend on the nature of the executive decision. Ordinarily, this factor must
apply on a sliding scale. The more policy-laden or polycentric the decision, the more the role
this factor must play in influencing the court’s determination. The lesser the policy-ladenness
or polycentricity, the lesser the influence of this factor. But courts must never lose sight of the
fact that this remains a balancing exercise. Affected fundamental rights must always play a
critical role in that balance. And in some cases the affected rights may be of such a nature,
and their breach so grievous, that they may influence the decision in favour of the victim of
the rights violatio n, even in the face of a highly policy -laden and polycentric executive
decision. The ultimate question is: what is the outcome dictated by the balan cing
exercise?’39
[29] The present matter pertains to the BEC’s decision to disqualify the applicant’s
bid for want of satisfying the requirements attached to the evaluation o f its
functionality. This was neither a policy-laden nor a polycentric decision. Furthermore,
the apprehended harm amounts to a breach of the applicants’ right to just
administrative action , which is entrenched in the Bill of Rights. Based on the
principles enunciated in OUTA, and subsequently clarified in Eskom Holdings SOC
Ltd, the circumstances of the present matter do not place the applicants beyond the
reach of the interim relief sought. An order to that effect will, moreover, be limited in
scope and time, such that the municipality will not be prevented altogether from
exercising the powers and performing the duties associated with the repair and
maintenance of muni cipal roads. The restraint pertains to certain portions of less
than a dozen streets in the town of Makhanda, and only until the determination of the
final relief sought under part B of the application. It cannot be said, by any stretch of
final relief sought under part B of the application. It cannot be said, by any stretch of
the imagination, that the granting of interim relief will cause separation -of-powers
harm.
[30] Regarding the other arguments ad vanced by the respondents, the threat of
the National Treasury’s refusal to allow any further ‘roll over’ of funding was
unsubstantiated. No supporting affidavit from anyone at National Treasury confirmed
that this would be the outcome if the work was not completed by 31 March 2026 ;
furthermore, no letter, circular, or guideline to that effect accompanied the papers.
39 Para 303.
The risk is speculative at best. Whereas the municipality has already taken steps to
implement the tender, the papers indicate that this has not progressed much further
than site establishment and handover. Mabona Civils may well have engaged with
local labourers and started acquiring materials, but no evidence was presented that
a delay caused by the granting of an order would create sufficient prejudice to tip the
scales of convenience against the applicants . Mabona Civils has, in any event, not
opposed the proceedings.
[31] The applicants’ formal objection, lodged on 2 December 2025, came to
nought. It is clear from the municipal manager’s communication on 23 December
2025 that the municipality was of the view that it had already dealt with the objection
by referring it to its Legal Services Department. The resulting ‘review’ , includin g
additional reasons for the disqualification of the bid , was, in the municipal manager’s
opinion, decisive of the matter. There is, in the circumstances, no other satisfactory
remedy available to the applicants.
Relief and order
[32] The court is persuaded that the applicants have established a case for
urgency. Furthermore, the court is satisfied that they have met the requirements for
interim relief, as set out in Setlegelo and subsequently qualified by the Constitutional
Court in OUTA and oth er cases when the exercise of a statutory power was
implicated. The only remaining issue is that of costs. Despite the interim nature of
the relief to be granted, there is no reason why the general rule should not apply; the
applicants are entitled to the recovery of their expenditure.
[33] Consequently, the following order is made:
(a) the applicant’s non -compliance with the Uniform Rules of Court regarding
service, and forms, is hereby condoned, and the matter is disposed of on
an urgent basis, in accordance with rule 6(12);
(b) the respondents are interdicted with immediate effect from implementing
or giving any further effect to the award of ‘Tender no. MLM/2025 -
26/INFRA/001 – Re-Advert, Rehabilitation for Flood Damages Phase 2 in
Makana Local Municipality’ (‘the tender’) to the third respondent, pending
the determination of part B of the application to review and set aside the
decision to award the tender to the third respondent; and
(c) the first and second respondents are liable and are ordered to pay the
party-and-party costs of part A of the application, jointly and severally, on
scale C.
_________________________
JGA LAING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
APPEARANCES
For the applicant: Adv Ramsay
Instructed by: Goldberg & De Villiers Inc.
Email: salomes@goldlaw.co.za
c/o Dullabh Attorneys
5 Bertram Street
MAKHANDA
Tel: 046 622 6611
Email: naran@dullabhs.co.za
Ref: Mr Dullabh
For the 1st and 2nd
Respondents: Adv Ronaasen SC
Instructed by: Joubert Galpin Searle Attorneys
c/o Huxtable Attorneys
26 New Street
MAKHANDA
Tel: 046 622 2961
Email: shaynedb@jgs.co.za
owen@huxtable.co.za
Ref: S de Beer/MAK113/0003
Date heard: 24 February 2026.
Date delivered: 10 March 2026.