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 DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG
CASE NO: 18018/2023
In the matter between:
NEWCASTLE INSDUSTRIAL LAUNDERS CC FIRST PLAINTIFF
(Registration Number: 2008/146892/23)
FAIZEL CASSIM SECOND PLAINTIFF
R.F SCREEN PRINTERS (PTY) LTD THIRD PLAINTIFF
(Registration Number: 2018/410247/07
ROELIEN ANDIE VENTER FOURT PLIANTIFF
and
THE NEWCASTLE MUNICIPALITY DEFENDANT
Coram: Mngadi J
2
Heard: 11 May 2026
Delivered:
ORDER
1. The defendant is found liable to compensate the first, second, third and
fourth plaintiffs for the loss/harm proved and proved to have been caused
by the conduct/act of the defendant.
2. The defendant is ordered to pay costs on Scale C including costs of
senior counsel where so employed, the costs include qualifying costs and
attendance in court on 11 May 2026 of the following experts:
1. Mr Kevin Mumsamy
2. Mr Jacobus Johammes du Plessis
3. Mr Juan Fedder
4. Mr Cassim Azeez
JUDGMENT
Mngadi J:
[1] The plaintiffs sued the defendant for damages totalling R18.6m. The issues in
terms of Rule 33 (4) having been separated, this judgment deals with liability.
[2] The plaintiffs for their case did not lead any oral evidence. They relied on the
pleadings and the contents of the documents in the bundles. It having been agreed
that such documents are what they purport to be and parties could rely on the
3
contents thereof as evidence without a need for further proof. The defendant did not
lead any evidence. Mr Temlett for the defendant placed it on record that on the
issue of liability he had no instructions from the defendant. As a result he did not in
any way challenge the plaintiffs on their evidenc e and arguments on the issue of
liability.
[3] The first plaintiff is Newcastle Industrial Launders CC reg no.2008/146892/23, a
close corporation incorporated in accordance with the Close Corporations Act 69 of
1984. The second plaintiff is Faizel Cassim a major male businessman. The third
plaintiff is R.F Screen Printers (Pty)Ltd, a private company duly registered and
incorporated in terms of the Company Laws of the Republic of South Africa . The
fourth plaintiff is Roelien Andrie Venter, also known as Razia Cassim, a major female
businessperson. The defendant is the Newcastle Municipality, a municipality
established in terms of section 12 of the Local Government Municipal Structures Act
No: 117 of 1998.
[4] The second plaintiff is the owner of 100% membership interest in the first
plaintiff and at all times material to the action the managing director of the first
plaintiff and in the permanent employment by the first plaintiff. The fourth plaintiff
holds 50% shareholding in the third plaintiff and is its managing director.
[5] At all times material to the action the first plaintiff conducted the business of an
industrial screen printer at the premises at 3[...] M[...] drive, Riverside Industrial area
in Newcastle within the municipal area controlled and regulated by the defendant.
The third plaintiff conducted the business of an industrial screen printer at the same
premises as the first plaintiff. The second and fourth plaintiffs were married to each
other by the Islamic rights. The second plaintiff in his employment by first plaintiff
earned a salary of R40 000 per month. The fourth plaintiff in her employment earned
a monthly salary of R15 000.00.
a monthly salary of R15 000.00.
[6] The first and third plaintiff s as operating business es were consumers of
electricity and water and other municipal services in the form of sewage serviced and
industrial supplied waste disposal services supplied by the defendant in terms of a
4
written agreement s and as a municipality servicing area wherein their businesses
were situated and operating.
[7] At all times material hereto and to the knowledge of the defendant , the first
plaintiff conducted business of an industrial laundr y generating income. The third
plaintiff conducted the business of an industrial screen printer generating an income.
The businesses operated by the first and third plaintiffs were operating in the
premises within the municipal area of the defendant and were solely reliant for
municipal services on the services rendered by the defendant.
[8] The defendant by virtue of being a public authority and its relationship with
plaintiffs operating business within its municipal area and the first and fourth plaintiffs
being its resident rate payers and registered voters owed a duty of care not to cause
harm on them and or their businesses. The second plaintiff in October 2021 was
contesting in local government elections was contesting a mayoral position for
Newcastle under the auspices of Action SA political party and he was in some circles
referred to a mayor elect. In that regard he relied on the support by co -plaintiffs.
The second plaintiff in his efforts to be elected mayor was entitled not be unlawfully
interfered and to be frustrated in that effort by the defendant. The second and fourth
plaintiffs were entitled to earn and to continue to earn salaries from their employment
without wrongful interference by the defendant.
[9] The plaintiffs pleaded that the defendant wrongfully and in breach of its duty not
to cause harm and loss to the plaintiffs embar ked on a cause of action directed at
causing loss and harm to the plaintiffs and to their businesses in the form of pure
economic loss for which the defendant is liable to compensate them. The cause of
action entailed launching and pursuing a court interdict intended to and had the
effect of closing down the said businesses of the first and third plaintiffs by cutting off
effect of closing down the said businesses of the first and third plaintiffs by cutting off
supply of municipal services in the form of water and stopping the plaintiffs from
releasing industrial effluent from their businesses.
[10] The plaintiffs pleaded that on 6 October 2021 the defendant issued an
urgent court application in this court under case no: 8610/2021P against the first and
third plaintiffs interdicting the first and third plaintiffs from disposing of or leaking
5
effluent and/or contaminants into the storm water drainage and sewer system of the
defendant and sought and obtained an order to terminate the supply of water to the
first and third plaintiffs businesses. The defendant stated that the interdict was
intended to and would have the effect of closing down the businesses of the first and
third plaintiffs. The interdict despite the plaintiffs’ efforts to have it not granted, varied
or rescinded which efforts were resisted by the defendant remained in place until 7
March 2023 when at the instance of the defendant it was withdrawn.
[11] The interdict was obtained on a claim that eff luent from the first and third
plaintiffs’ premises into the defendant ’s sewage system and or stormwater drainage
system contained harmful co ntaminants and or pollutants which claims was and
remained false and it was not based on any evidence.
[12] The defendant initially raised exceptions to the particulars of cla im. The
exceptions were abandoned. The defendant in the plea over pleaded a bare denial.
It admitted that it obtained a court interdict in question but denied the effect thereof
although in the founding affidavit to the interdict application it stated what the effect
of the interdict would be to the businesses of the first and third plaintiffs. It admitted
that it discharged the interdict on 7 March 2023. The defendant in the plea over
never tried to justify the obtaining of an interdict against the plaintiffs. The reason
furnished was that the effluent from the business es contained harmful contaminants
or pollutants. It was an allegation by the defendant . The defendant then and up to
this state has not been able to produce any evidence in support of the allegation it
made. The defendant at the hearing its counsel placed on record that he had no
instructions to dispute the plaintiffs’ claim on the issue of liability. No effort was
made during the hearing to challenge the plaintiffs on the issue of liability.
made during the hearing to challenge the plaintiffs on the issue of liability.
[13] The first and third plaintiffs as measures to have the interdict varied or
removed sourced and obtained experts ’ reports furnished to the defendant
demonstrating that the waste from their premises did not contain harmful
contaminants or pollutants, namely, a report of Mr Jaco Du Plessis of the River Guy
(Pty) ltd a professional expert dated 12 October 2021, a report by Mr Kevin
Mumsamy an environmental scientist dated 20 October 2021 and a second report
dated 30 November 2021. The defendant ignored the exp erts’ reports. The court
6
(Olsen J) on 3 November 2021 ordered a mechanism to satisfy the defendant that
waste from the plaintiffs’ business contained no harmful contaminants but the
defendant refused to comply with the court created mechanism. As a result, the
plaintiffs’ businesses continued to remain closed. The first and third plaintiffs filed
their answering affidavit with experts reports in October 2021, but the defen dant
failed to consider them and failed to file any replying affidavit.
[14] The defendant in the founding affidavit to the interdict application stated that
the relief it sought was directed at closing down the business of the first and third
applicants and that shall cause loss to them, inviting the plaintiff that once they have
suffered the loss they can quantify it and lodge a claim with defendant.
[15] The defendant and an entity U thukela Water (Pty) Ltd Limited as applicants
obtained an interdict which had the effect to close down the businesses of first and
third plaintiffs. There was no expert report or evidence that established that the
effluent from the business es of the first and third plaintiffs was contaminated. The
defendant although continuing not to have any evidence that supported its claim kept
the interdict extant until 7 March 2023. The interdict was granted based on claims
made by the defendant. The defendant a municipality and an organ of state had a
legal duty not to harm the businesses of the first and third plaintiff s by claims not
based on any evidence. It breached that duty thus acting wrongfully and it acted in a
reckless and negligent manner. It is at fault. The requirements for delictual liability
are: 1.A conduct in the form of an act or omission . 2.Wrongfullness in that t he
conduct must breach a legally recognised legal duty or infringe on someone legally
recognised rights. 3.Fault in that the wrongdoer must be culpable acting either with
intent or negligence which may include failure to exercise reasonable care. A delict
intent or negligence which may include failure to exercise reasonable care. A delict
refers to a wrongful and culpable conduct /act that causes harm to a person and
obliges the wrongdoer to compensate the aggrieved/injured party for the harm/loss
suffered. See J Neethling and J M Potgieter Law of Delict 8ed Lexis Nexis para 4.2 ;
Tematrix (Pty) Ltd t/a Matrix Vehicle Tracking v Advertising Standards Authority of
SA 2006 1 SA 461 (SCA) 468A-E; MTO Forestry (Pty) v Swart NO 2017 5 SA 76
(SCA); Van Eeden v Minister of Safety and Security ( Women’s Legal Centre Trust,
as amicus curiae) 2003 1 SA 389 (SCA) 395H-I; Truter and Another v Deysel 2006 4
SA 168 (SCA) 174E-F.
7
[16] It is ordered as follows:
1. The defendant is found liable to compensate the first, second, third and
fourth plaintiffs for the loss/harm proved and proved to have been caused by
the conduct/act of the defendant.
2. The defendant is ordered to pay costs on Scale C including costs of senior
counsel where so employed, the costs include qualifying costs and
attendance in court on 11 May 2026 of the following experts:
1. Mr Kevin Mumsamy
2. Mr Jacobus Johammes du Plessis
3. Mr Juan Fedder
4. Mr Cassim Azeez
__________________
Mngadi J
8
APPEARANCES
Counsel for the plaintiffs: R Padayachee SC
Instructed by: Narainsamy Naidoo & Associates
PIETERMARITZBURG
Counsel for the defendant: J W Temlett
Instructed by: T.J Mphela Attorneys
c/o Yashica Chetty Attorneys
PIETERMARITZBURG
Date reserved: 11 May 2026
Delivered on: