About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAGPPHC 238
|
|
Winterveldt Community Authority v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (136102/2024) [2026] ZAGPPHC 238 (5 March 2026)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA,
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case No: 136102/2024
Reportable: No
Of interest to other
Judges: No
Revised: No
SIGNATURE
Date: 5 March 2026
In the matter between:
WINTERVELDT
COMMUNITY AUTHORITY
Applicant
and
THE
CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY
Respondent
JUDGEMENT
MOOKI
J
1
The applicant seeks an order that
the respondent (the City) be compelled to implement remedial actions
as directed by the Public
Protector. The applicant is described in
the founding affidavit as a community authority established in terms
of section 2(1)(a)(11)
of the Bantu Administration Act 68 of 1951.
Counsel for the applicant mentioned to the Court that reference to
“Bantu Administration
Act” was an error, and that the
correct statute is the “Bantu Authority Act, 68 of 1951.”
2
The
applicant is said to be governed in terms of a constitution.
Clause 3 of the constitution records that “The Winter
veldt
(sic) Community Authority will be the only body to Administer and
rule the farms Klippan, 5 morgan and 10 Morgan, situated
in the
magisterial district of Pretoria.” The applicant consists of a
chairperson and twelve councillors. The constitution
further states
that the applicant will see to it that laws, regulations and
assignments are observed in connection with various
measures,
including health, education, control of obnoxious weeds, and the
protection of public places and private properties,
graves and
historical objects.
3
The Public Protector issued Report
No 32 of 2019/20, being a “Report on an investigation into
allegations of improper conduct
and maladministration during the
expropriation of the Winterveldt plots and inadequate compensation
for expropriated plots by the
City of Tshwane Metropolitan
Municipality.” The report is a result of a complaint lodged on
23 October 2011 on behalf of
plot owners at Winterveldt. The
complaint was that the City did not follow due process in
expropriating plots owned by the
complainants. The further complaint
was that the complainants did not receive adequate compensation for
the expropriation. The
report has a table, listing plot owners and
their respective plot numbers.
4
The Public Protector concluded that
the City did not follow due process in carrying out the
expropriations. Furthermore, the Public
Protector concluded that
there was no adequate compensation for the expropriation. The Public
Protector then directed the City
to undertake remedial actions. The
remedial actions included the issuing of letters of apology to the
complainants, the appointment
of a property valuer to re-evaluate the
expropriated plots, and that the complainants be compensated based on
the outcome of that
valuation.
5
The applicant says the City did not
comply with the remedial actions as directed by the Public Protector,
hence the present proceedings.
The City opposes the application.
The City raises the following preliminary points, namely:
5.1
That
the applicant lacks standing.
5.2
Non-joinder
of complainants identified in the report by the Public Protector.
5.3
That
the relief sought is in the nature of an interdict, and that the
applicant has not met the requirements for an interdict.
5.4
That
the applicant relies on hearsay evidence.
6
There are two aspects to the point
on standing. Firstly, that the applicant
has
no direct and substantial interest in the remedial action because the
remedial action is intended for the benefit of the complainants,
not
for the applicant. Secondly, that the applicant is not competent to
seek to enforce compliance with remedial action
directed by the Public Protector.
7
There was no replying affidavit on
behalf of the applicant. The Court enquired from counsel for the
applicant, during the hearing,
as to what law or authority the
applicant relied on for the relief being sought. Counsel informed the
Court that he was unable
to cite any authority.
8
The City’s point on standing
is sound. The applicant has not shown what interest the applicant has
on the remedial action.
The applicant does not even invoke its own
constitution as showing a basis for the relief being sought.
9
The City referenced Rule 44 of the
rules relating to investigation by the Public Protector as
illustrative that the applicant has
no standing. Rule 44 deals with
the monitoring of remedial action to be taken. Rule 44(3)
stipulates that the Public Protector
may, where there is no
compliance with remedial action, undertake various measures,
including instituting contempt proceedings
against the person who
failed and/or refused and/or neglected to comply with the remedial
action.
10
The applicant’s failure to
join the complainants, who are the subject of the remedial action
directed by the Public Protector,
is fatal. Counsel for the
City submitted that the applicant would appropriate to itself the
remedial action directed by the
Public Protector. He referred the
Court to the formulation of the relief in the notice of motion in
this regard. The relief sought
includes that the City issue “letters
of apology to the Applicant”, and that the City see to it that,
on receipt of
a re-valuation report, to “ensure that the
Applicant are properly compensated for its plots …”, and
that the
City consider identifying plots that have not been used by
the City for the purpose they were expropriated for “and
consider
returning the land to the Applicant.” The relief in
the notice of motion is decidedly in the name of the applicant. The
remedial
measures directed by the Public Protector are for the
benefit of complainants as detailed in the Public Protector’s
report.
11
It is unnecessary to address all the
preliminary points raised by the City. The application must fail on
the points dealt with by
the Court.
12
I make the following order:
(i)
The application is dismissed.
(ii)
The applicant is ordered to pay costs,
costs of counsel being on Scale B.
O MOOKI
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG
DIVISION PRETORIA
Counsel
for the applicant:
C
Opperman
Instructed
by:
Cremer
Attorneys
Counsel
for the respondent:
V V
Mabuza
Instructed
by:
MB
Mabunda Inc.
Date
heard:
4
March 2026
Date
of judgment:
5
March 2026