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
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 2024-073988
In the matter between:
UNITED NATIONAL BREWERIES (SA) (PTY) LTD Applicant
and
CITY OF JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY Respondent
JUDGMENT
MAUNATLALA AJ:
[1] This is an application by the Applicant, United National Breweries (SA) (Pty) Ltd, for an
order compelling the Respondent, the City of Johannesburg, to reverse all municipal
charges on a specific account, to render a new account limited to the property owned by
the Applicant (Erf 1 […] ), and for related interdictory relief. The core dispute concerns
whether the Applicant can be held liable for rates and municipal charges on the entire
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: YES
(3) REVISED:NO
DATE: 30 APRIL 2026… ……… SIGNATURE… ………………
2
George Goch Township when it owns only one erf (Erf 1[…] ), while the Gauteng Provincial
Government owns the remaining 17 erven.
[2] When the matter was called, the Respondent raised the issue of non-joinder, specifically
regarding the absence of the Gauteng Provincial Government as a party. The Respondent
had raised this as a point in limine in its answering affidavit [paragraph B, sub- paragraphs
3.1.-3.3] and reiterated it in its Heads of Argument.
[3] As set out in the Respondent’s Heads of Argument at paragraph 9, “[i]t is common
cause that the Applicant together with the Gauteng Provincial Government are joined
owners of the subject property.” The Respondent correctly notes at paragraph 10 that if the
Court grants the order sought by the Applicant, “the charges reversed on the Applicant’s
account would still be due and payable” and “the Municipality would be obligated to collect
from the Gauteng Provincial Government when it was not given an opportunity to
participate in these proceedings.”
[4] The Respondent further submits at paragraph 11 that “[t]he order sought by the
Applicant clearly would affect the rights of the Gauteng Provincial Government.” I agree.
The relief sought – a reversal of all charges on the joint account and an interdict restraining
the City from levying charges on the other 17 erven – would directly impact the legal
position and potential liability of the Gauteng Provincial Government.
[5] The Applicant opposes any postponement, contending that the relief sought is limited to
reversing charges on its own municipal account and does not directly affect the rights of the
Gauteng Provincial Government. The Applicant further argues that further delays are
prejudicial given the substantial arrears and the ongoing accumulation of charges.
3
[6] The Respondent supports a postponement. At paragraph 10 of its Heads of Argument,
the Respondent correctly identifies the practical problem: “The order being final and binding
and in the absence of participation by the Gauteng Provincial Government in these
proceedings, the Municipality would be obligated to collect from the Gauteng Provincial
Government when it was not given an opportunity to participate in these proceedings.”
[7] The law on non- joinder is clear. A party has a direct and substantial interest in the
subject matter of litigation if a final order would affect its legal rights or obligations. The
court in Bowring NO v Vrededorp Properties CC 2007 (5) SA 391 (SCA) para 21) provided
that “The substantial test is whether the party that is alleged to be a necessary party for
purposes of joinder, has a legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation, which may be
affected prejudicially by the judgment of the court in the proceedings concerned”. Our
courts have consistently held that co- owners of property are necessary parties to
proceedings concerning that property, especially where rates and taxes, for which they may
be jointly and severally liable, are in dispute. The Respondent invokes the principle of joint
and several liability at paragraph 24 of its Heads, citing Lloyd v Richards and Another
(4892/2022) [2025] ZAWCHC 41, (unreported), at para 5 for the proposition that “[i]n the
case of joint and several liability … any one of a number of co- debtors is liable for the full
performance.”
[8] In this matter, the Deeds Office records confirm that the Applicant and the Gauteng
Provincial Government are reflected as co- owners of the Remainder of George Goch
Township. The relief sought by the Applicant would, if granted, directly impact the liability of
the Gauteng Provincial Government. The City would be compelled to seek those rates
exclusively from the Province, a party not before this Court. To determine this matter
4
without the Province present would risk making an order that is ineffective or that
prejudices the rights of an absent party. As the Respondent submits at paragraph 11 of its
heads of argument, the order “would affect the rights of the Gauteng Provincial
Government.”
[9] The Applicant’s submission that the Province is not a necessary party because the relief
is only against the City is misplaced. The test is not against whom the order is sought, but
whose legal interests will be affected by the order. In Snyders and Others v de Jager [2016]
ZACC 54, at paragraph 6, the Court confirmed that the test for joinder is that a litigant must
have a direct and substantial legal interest that may be affected prejudicially by the
judgment of the Court in the proceedings concerned. Here, the Province’s financial interest
(potential liability for the full extent of the township) is directly implicated.
[10] The Court is mindful of the Applicant’s frustration with the protracted nature of this
dispute and the mounting costs. However, the principle of audi alteram partem (hear the
other side) is fundamental to our constitutional dispensation. It would be procedurally unfair
and legally unsustainable to grant final relief that effectively reallocates a rates liability
without allowing the Gauteng Provincial Government an opportunity to be heard. The
Respondent correctly frames the issue at paragraph 1 of its Heads: “[i]s a municipality
prohibited from levying rates and taxes on an owner of property simply because that owner
owns the property with another party?” That question cannot be answered justly in the
absence of the other owner.
[12] I now turn to discuss the opposed postponement by the Applicant. A postponement is
a temporary procedural step, not a final adjudication nor a denial of a hearing. The
Applicant will still be afforded a hearing in due course of the law. It is the discretion of the
5
court to decide whether an application for a postponement should be granted or refused.
That discretion is one I exercise judicially, and for substantial reasons, which I deem a
Joinder (as a procedural requirement) to be such. (See R v Zackey 1945 AD 505.)
[13] For the reasons outlined above, I find that the appropriate course is to postpone the
matter so that the Gauteng Provincial Government may be notified and given the
opportunity to intervene as a party. This will allow all persons with a direct and substantial
interest in the subject matter to be before the Court, ensuring a just and conclusive
determination of the real dispute.
[14] As to costs, the postponement arises from a defect in the Applicant’s proceedings,
namely the failure to join a party with a direct and substantial interest in the matter. The
issue was raised by the Respondent in its answering affidavit and persisted with in its
Heads of Argument. Notwithstanding this, the Applicant proceeded to enrol the matter for
hearing on the merits. The general principle is that a party responsible for a postponement
should bear the wasted costs occasioned thereby (see( Burger v Kotze 1970 (4) SA 302
(W), 305D -G).). However, the question of costs must ultimately be determined with due
regard to considerations of fairness and the overall outcome of the proceedings. In the
event that the Applicant succeeds in establishing the substance of its claim, a different
costs order may be warranted.
[15] In the exercise of this Court’s discretion, it is appropriate that the costs occasioned by
the postponement be reserved for determination at the conclusion of the matter.
ORDER
[16] In the premises, the following order is made:
6
1 The matter is postponed sine die.
2 A copy of the application papers is to be served, by the applicant on the
Gauteng Province to afford the Gauteng Province the opportunity of applying
for leave to intervene as a party to this application, within a period of 30 court
days after such service.
3 The costs of 4 February 2026 are to be costs in the cause.
MI MAUNATLALA
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT,
JOHANNESBURG, GAUTENG DIVISION
DATE OF HEARING: 4 February 2026
DATE OF ORDER: 4 February 2026
DATE OF REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: 30 April 2026