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: 2026-155230
In the matter between:
MOHAMED EIDRIS VAWDA N.O. FIRST APPLICANT
ZAKARIYA EIDRIS VAWDA N.O. SECOND APPLICANT
EIDRIS MOHAMED VAWDA N.O. THIRD APPLICANT
and
ETHEKWINI MUNICIPALITY RESPONDENT
ORDER
I make the following order:
1. The application is dismissed.
2. The Applicants are to pay the Respondent’s costs on an attorney and
client scale.
Page 2
JUDGMENT
P WALLIS AJ
[1] On its face, this application is about the reconnection of electricity
supply by the Respondent (the municipality) to a commercial property and
the setting aside of penalty rates levied by the Respondent consequent upon
a determination that unlawful development had taken place on the property.
The application is about that. But it is not only about that.
[2] Mr Koroma (who appeared for the Applicants, who are themselves
the trustees of the Zikr and Shukr Trust ) submitted that the dispute is about
the rule of law. I agree.
[3] The error of the Applicants is to assume that the rule of law runs in
only one direction and that that direction confers rights, but not obligations,
upon the Trust. In contrast, this case is illustrative of how the rule of law runs
as a golden thread that controls the conduct of local government, restrains
unlawful private development to the benefit of fellow citizens and future
generations, and proves the value of the enforcement of court procedure in
defence of those two prior principles.
Brief summary background
[4] It suffices to say that a multi storey building 1 has been constructed
immediately behind the single storey building owned by the Trust. That
construction required excavation of the hillside and appears to have taken
place on municipal land. Not only is the land municipal in nature, but it is also
a protected area declared as a nature reserve (known as Burman Bush). The
municipality determined (the reasonableness of that determination will be
considered below) that the Applicants were responsible for the construction.
Based on that determination, the rates category for the Applicants’ property
1 The record does not establish the precise number of storeys; the photographic evidence
suggests between five and seven.
Page 3
was changed to “unauthorised/illegal dev.use”, which change of status
imposes penalty rates. The Applicants admit that they did not pay those
penalty rates and consequent upon that non -payment, the municipality
disconnected electricity supply to the property.
[5] There is no dispute before me on the papers as regards the
determination that this structure is unlawful or the contention that it
encroaches onto municipal land.
[6] Against that background, the application seeks relief in the form of a
rule nisi, broadly:
(a) directing the reconnection of electricity, and interdicting further
disconnections; and
(b) setting aside the change of the rates category. The reconnection and
interdictory relief were sought on an interim basis.
[7] Notably, the application is not framed as a review in the form
contemplated in Uniform Rule 53. Consequently, no record was sought or
placed before the court at the hearing of the matter.
[8] The underpinning contention of the Applicants is that the Respondent
has acted without due regard to their administrative law rights (particularly
rights to notice).
The rule of law
[9] As indicated, the Applicants framed their submissions within the
rubric of the ‘rule of law’. The submission was narrowly focussed on the ‘rule
of law’ in the form of compliance by government with administrative law
obligations.
[10] In order to assess those submissions it is necessary to consider what
is meant by the phrase ‘rule of law’ . I do not accept that the phrase has so
narrow an application as the Applicants contend. In this application the rule of
Page 4
law encompasses: the obligation on local government to conduct itself in
accordance with fair procedure, but also the corollary obligation to enforce
the law; as well as the obligation on citizens to conduct themselves in
accordance with their own legal obligations. Additionally the concept enjoins
practitioners and litigants to conduct themselves honestly and candidly within
the framework of the rules and processes of Court.
[11] So important is the rule of law that it finds mention in s1 of the
constitution. It does so in the following terms:
“The Republic of South Africa is one, sovereign, democratic State founded on the
following values:
(c) Supremacy of the constitution and the rule of law.”
[12] For the most part, the judgments that deal with the question of the
rule of law are focused upon the legitimacy of the exercise of public power.
This is an unsurprising focus. The Constitutional Court in Fedsure Life
Assurance and Others v Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan
Council and Others 2 stated: “These provisions imply that local government may
only act within the powers lawfully conferred upon it. There is nothing startling in this
proposition – it is a fundamental principle of the rule of law, recognised widely, that
the exercise of public power is only legitimate when lawful. The rule of law – to the
extent at least that it expresses this principle of legality – is generally understood to
be a fundamental principle of constitutional law.”
[13] More jurisprudentially complex is whether the rule of law imposes
upon private citizens a duty to obey the law. 3 Whatever the academic view ,
the Constitutional Court has since been clear that:
“It is indeed the lofty and lonely work of the judiciary, impervious to public
commentary and political rhetoric, to uphold, protect and apply the constitution and
the law at any and all costs. The corollary duty borne by all members of South
the law at any and all costs. The corollary duty borne by all members of South
African society – lawyers, laypeople and politicians alike – is to respect and abide by
2 1999 (1) SA 374 (CC) at [56]
3 For a full discussion consider the chapter by C Hoexter in Roederer et al, Jurisprudence,
2004
Page 5
the law and court orders issued in terms of it, because unlike other arms of State,
Courts rely solely on the trust and confidence of the people to carry out their
constitutionally mandated function.”4
[14] This reinforces the earlier Constitutional Court judgment in Lesapo v
North West Agricultural Bank and Another ,5 which although dealing with an
entity created by statute, considered that the rule of law precluded a creditor
in the exercise of private law rights from “self help” in the form of execution in
the absence of a court order. Thus understood the rule of law constrains the
conduct of private citizens where that conduct is incompatible with the
constitutional or legislative order.
[15] The Constitutional Court has further expounded upon the rule of law
in a manner relevant to both the exercise of public power and to the
obligations of private citizens. In the matter of Economic Freedom Fighters v
Speaker of the National Assembly and Others; Democratic Alliance v
Speaker of the National Assembly and Others6 that court confirmed that:
“The rule of law requires that no power be exercised unless it is sanctioned by law
and no decision or step sanctioned by law may be ignored based purely on the
contrary view we hold. It is not open to any of us to pick and choose which of the
otherwise effectual consequences of the exercise of constitutional or statutory power
will be disregarded and which given heed to. Our foundational value of the rule of
law demands of us, as a law abiding people, to obey decisions made by those
clothed with the legal authority to make them or else approach courts of law to set
them aside, so we may validly escape their binding force.”
[16] As set out below, the particular facts of this matter also implicate the
constitutional right to environment as encapsulated in s24 of the constitution.
That section in relevant part declares as follows:
4 Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture,
4 Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture,
Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector including Organs of State v Zuma and Others
2021 (5) SA 327 (CC) at [1]
5 2000 (1) SA 409 (CC)
6 2016(3) SA 580 (CC) at [75]
Page 6
“Everyone has the right –
(b) to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future
generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that –
(i) prevent pollution and ecological degradation…
(iii) secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources
while promoting justifiable economic and social development.”
[17] In explaining this provision the Constitutional Court 7 expounded as
follows:
“But development cannot subsist upon a deteriorating environmental base.
Unlimited development is detrimental to the environment and the destruction of the
environment is detrimental to development. Promotion of development requires the
protection of the environment. Yet the environment cannot be protected if
development does not pay attention to the costs of environmental destruction. The
environment and development are thus inextricably linked.”
[18] The South African State was also in attendance at the 27 th Session
of the governing council of the United Nations Environment Programme
(12 March 2013) where the governing council of that body recorded in
decision 27/9:8
“Noting that democracy, good g overnance and the rule of law, at the national and
international levels, as well as an enabling environment, are essential for
sustainable development, including sustained and inclusive economic growth, social
development, environmental protection and the eradication of poverty and hunger.
…
Recognizes that the violation of environmental law has the potential to undermine
sustainable development on the implementation of agreed environmental goals and
objectives at all levels and that the rule of law and effective governance play an
essential role in reducing such violations and invites Governments and relevant
organizations to further strengthen mechanisms and explore initiatives for
exchanging information and sharing experiences in order to reinforce international,
exchanging information and sharing experiences in order to reinforce international,
regional and subregional cooperation to combat noncompliance with environmental
7 Fuel Retailers Association of Southern Africa v Director General: Environmental
Management, Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment, Mpumalanga
Province and Others 2007 (6) SA 4 (CC) at [44]
8 Titled Advancing Justice, Governance and Law for Environmental Sustainability
Page 7
laws, including, inter alia, measures to increase the effectiveness of administrative,
civil and criminal enforcement mechanisms, institutions and laws in the field of
environment as well as applicable education and training.”
[19] Kreilhuber and Kariuki9 record that:
“Environmental rule of law, or rule of law in the field of the environment, describes
when laws are widely understood, respected and enforced and people in the planet
enjoy the benefits of environmental protection. It provides an essential platform
underpinning the three pillars of sustainable development – economic, social and
environmental.”
[20] In discussing the distinct characteristics of the environmental rule of
law, the authors identify that:
“…because the environmental rule of law is implemented in the face of uncommon
time scales – that is, time scales of many centuries and more – it implicates
intergenerational equity . While sustainable development may serve short term
individual or organisational interests, environmental rule of law plays an important
role in protecting the individual and collective interests of citizens and future
generations over the long term.”
[21] International and comparative materials increasingly describe th e
convergence of legality and environmental protection as the 'environmental
rule of law'. South African authors use the same lens when considering the
right of public participation in respect of decisions having environmental
impact10. The Supreme Court of India 11 expressly recognised the concept of
an “environmental rule of law”. Closer to home , the Kenyan High Court has
considered the rule of law within the context of the impact of development on
environmental and cultural rights.12
9 Kreilhuber and Kariuki , Environmental Rule of Law in the context of Sustainable
Development, the Georgetown Environmental Law Review, Vol 32: 591
10 J Hall & PJ Lukey ‘Public participation as an essential requirement of the environmental
10 J Hall & PJ Lukey ‘Public participation as an essential requirement of the environmental
rule of law: Reflections on South Africa’s approach in policy and practice’ (2023) 23 African
Human Rights Law Journal 303-332 http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/1996-2096/2023/v23n2a4
11 Hanuman Laxman Aroskar vs Union Of India (29 March, 2019) 2019 SC 318 – Part J
12 Baadi & others v Attorney General & 7 others; National Land Commission & 2 others
(Interested Parties); Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights & another
Page 8
[22] It does not seem to me that that terminology has yet assumed an
established doctrinal status in South African law, but it provides a useful
descriptive framework in which to consider a dispute at the intersection
between town planning, administrative, and environmental law.
[23] Some support for this idea can be found in the judgment of t he
Supreme Court of Appeal in Lester v Ndlambe Municipality and Another 13,
which dealt with a demolition order of a similarly unlawful construction under
Section 21 of National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act 103
of 1977. That Court framed a demolition order within the rubric of the rule of
law14. Indeed, that Court held that:
“Put differently, a failure to exercise that power [under S21] where the exigencies of
a particular case require it, would amount to undermining the legality principle which,
as stated, is inextricably linked to the rule of law.”15
[24] The rule of law also depends upon courts determining disputes on
truthful and complete factual material presented in accordance with
established procedures. Those judgments in turn depend upon a conduct of
both litigants and practitioners. The Constitutional Court in General Council of
the Bar of South Africa v Jiba and Others16 held:
“The proper administration of justice may not be achieved and justice itself may not
be served unless truthful facts are placed before the Courts. Legal practitioners are
a vital part of our system of justice. Their important role includes preventing false
evidence from being presented at Court hearings, and by so doing they protect
judicial education of disputes from contamination by fabricated facts. As a result, the
law demands from every practitioner absolute personal integrity and scrupulous
honesty.”
(Amicus Curiae) (Petition 22 of 2012) [2018] KEHC 5397 (KLR) (Civ) (30 April 2018)
(Judgment) [243]
13 2015 (6) SA 283 (SCA)
14 Lester [23]
15 Lester [26]
16 2019 (8) BCLR 919 (CC) at [1]
Page 9
[25] In my view t hese threads of the rule of law come together in a
determination of this matter.
Factual analysis
[26] In order to place this development in context it is necessary to
describe briefly both the geography and history of eThekwini (previously
Durban). The property in question lies on the western side of the Umgeni
Road. The Umgeni Road runs broadly north - south from the traditional CBD
towards the Umgeni River. Historically it was the route to the Queens Bridge
which was the first bridge over the Umgeni River.
[27] To the western side of Umgeni Road, the Berea Ridge rises steeply.
Indeed, at this particular place, there is space for only one row of buildings
between the road and the foot of the hill . On the eastern flank of the Umgeni
Road, sits an area now developed as golf courses but historically part of the
meandering estuary of the Umgeni River which area was described by
Cooper and Mason17 as follows:
“…The uMngeni flowed southward between the Berea Ridge and a line of coastal
dunes before discharging into Natal Bay.”
[28] This historical geographical constraint has left a series of single and
double storey light-industrial and commercial buildings on the western edge
of Umgeni Road. Rising above that set of buildings is approximately 50
hectares of preserved coastal forest known as the Burman Bush. That forest
is all that remains of the coastal forest that historically covered the entirety of
the Berea Ridge . It contains important rock formations that expose the
geological history of Durban dating back to the Pleistocene era.18
17 The extract appears in a recordal of the historical description of the Umgeni River
published by the Department of Water and Sanitation in its State of the Rivers Report
https://www.dws.gov.za/iwqs/rhp/state_of_rivers/state_of_umngeni_02/history.html
18 On the Pleistocene rocks at Burman Bush, Berea Ridge, Durban, JJ Frankel published in
the South African Journal of Science, December 1964
Page 10
[29] The environmental importance of Bur man Bush was recognised by
forward thinking representatives of the eThekwini Municipality and its
predecessors nearly a 100 years ago in 1932. The Borough of Durban was
only granted city status 3 years later in 1935.
[30] By 1962, the entire space was classified as a public park on the
Surveyor General’s diagram. Still later in 2016, the municipality gave notice
of an intention to declare the area a protected area as contemplated in the
National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 2003. The
“Durban State of Biodiversity Report 2017/2018” published by the
municipality reflects that such status had been granted . The Burman Bush is
also fully integrated into the Durban Metropolitan Open Space System (D -
MOSS) which finds recognition in the various town planning provisions as
controlled development land.
[31] This extended history speaks to the intergenerational nature of
environmental rights discussed by Kreilhuber et al.
[32] Having set out the geographical space in which the dispute arises, I
turn now to consider the facts of this particular application.
[33] It is not in dispute that immediately behind the building on the
Applicants’ property that fronts onto the Umgeni Road, is now a large multi
storey concrete structure. That structure is, from the photographic record, so
near to the lawful building constructed on the Applicants’ property, that it
seems unlikely that a person could pass between them. The structure
manifestly required significant excavation from the hillside within the
boundaries of Burman Bush. There is no obvious entrance into the structure
except through the Applicants’ property. The cut material must, on these
papers, have been removed through the Applicant’s property. The report of
the Building Inspector records a conversation with the Manager of the
adjoining property who is recorded to have stated that:
Page 11
“They had no dealings with the unauthorised building and that as far as they are
aware, the owner of 1[...] U[...] Road [the Trust] was responsible for the
development.”
[34] Against this factual background, the municipal inspectors conducted
an inspection on 5 June 2025 and issued a notice to stop work to the
Applicants on the following day.
[35] That notice included the following wording:
“The municipality shall, upon your failure to comply with the provisions of this notice,
implement an increase in your property rates in accordance with the eThekwini
Municipality rates policy 2024/2025.”
[36] The municipality sets out that a further inspection was conducted on
or about 1 September 2025 and a final notice was delivered to the Applicants
on 3 September 2025. A subsequent inspection on 15 January 2026
revealed that the unauthorised construction was ongoing. The rates type was
re-categorised during November 2025 and a supplementary valuation roll
adjustment notice was issued to the Applicants on 13 November 2025.
[37] From 16 January 2026, v arious challenges were then raised through
correspondence and the submission of objections to the rates
reclassification. I regard it as important to identify certain features of the
correspondence addressed on behalf of the Applicants to the municipality
prior to the institution of the application. In particular:
(a) Throughout the correspondence the Applicants put forward bare
denials of any involvement in the construction of the building. They
do this in a tone of outrage.
(b) Despite professing no knowledge of , or interest in , the building the
Applicants nonetheless:
(i) invited engagement with the municipality to explore “lawful
regularisation mechanisms” such as a lease or servitude of
the property; and
Page 12
(ii) made clear that they would object to an order for demolition
(ostensibly on safety grounds).
[38] Throughout this application, the Applicants persisted in contending
that they had nothing whatsoever to do with the construction of the building
but surprisingly (if that version were to be accepted) the Applicants made no
effort to take the court into their confidence as to when the construction took
place, how access was gained to the site , how the excavated soil was
removed from the site, or any other relevant information that one would have
expected a neighbour to know when construction was so clearly taking place
immediately adjacent to the Applicants’ building.
[39] It is also clear from the correspondence directed by the Applicants
that even if they seek to raise a complaint about the time of delivery of
notices by the municipality there can be no debate that the Applicants in fact
received actual notice of the municipality’s position.
[40] The effect of the reclassification of rates was to cause the monthly
rates to reach a punitive level . These were admittedly unpaid by the
Applicants. The monthly rates and electricity invoices issued by the
municipality contain notices that if arrears are not settled , then electricity
services will be terminated.
Analysis of the factual version
[41] The Applicants’ case is predicated upon a contention that they are
not responsible for the construction of the structure encroaching upon the
Burman Bush. That version is advanced in the form of a bare denial (which
bare denial is repeated in the replying affidavit). I have already indicated that
if that denial were to be relied upon, one would have expected a more
amplified version as to how the construction came about.
Page 13
[42] In the ordinary course, the application of the rule in Plascon-Evans19
would be sufficient grounds to hold that the matter must be determined on
the version advanced by the municipality. This is particularly so in
circumstances where the Applicants have elected not to invoke the
procedure as contemplated in Uniform Rule 53 and thus there is no record.
[43] However, the same outcome can be reached by a different method
which in my view is more apposite in this matter. The Supreme Court of
Appeal described the alternate approach in Buffalo Freight Systems (Pty) Ltd
v Crestleigh Trading (Pty) Ltd and Another:20
[19] .... The court should be prepared to undertake an objective analysis of
such disputes when required to do so. In J W Wightman (Pty) Ltd v Headfour (Pty)
Ltd [2008] ZASCA 6 ; 2008 (3) SA 371(SCA) , it was suggested how that might be
done in appropriate circumstances. The present case calls for a similar analysis.
[20] A court must always be cautious about deciding probabilities in the face
of conflicts of facts in affidavits. Affidavits are settled by legal advisers with varying
degrees of experience, skill and diligence and a litigant should not pay the price for
an adviser’s shortcomings. Judgment on the credibility of the deponent, absent
direct and obvious contradictions, should be left open. Nevertheless the courts have
recognised reasons to take a stronger line to avoid injustice. In Da Matta v
Otto 1972 (3) SA 858 (A) at 689 D-E, the following was said:
‘In regard to the appellant ‘s sworn statements alleging the oral agreement, it does
not follow that because these allegations were not contradicted – the witness who
could have disputed them had died – they should be taken as proof of the facts
involved. Wigmore on Evidence, 3 rd ed., vol. VII, p.260, states that the mere
assertion of any witness does not of itself need to be believed, even though he is
unimpeached in any manner, because to require such belief would be to give a
unimpeached in any manner, because to require such belief would be to give a
quantative and impersonal measure to testimony. The learned author in this
connection at p. 262 cites the following passage from a decision quoted:
19 Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd [1984] (3) SA 623 (A)
20 2011 (1) SA 8 (SCA)
Page 14
“it is not infrequently supposed that a sworn statement is necessary proof, and that,
if uncontradicted, it established the fact involved. Such is by no means the law.
Testimony, regardless of the amount of it, which is contrary to all reasonable
probabilities or conceded facts -testimony which no sensible man can believe -goes
for nothing; while the evidence of a single witness to a fact, there being nothing to
throw discredit, cannot be disregarded.”
Also in Siffman v Kriel, 1909 T.S. 538, INNES, C.J., at p 543 says:
“It does not follow, because evidence is uncontradicted, that therefore it is true …
The story told by the person on whom the onus rests may be so improbable as not
to discharge it.”
[44] In short, the version advanced by the Applicants is in my view so
untenable th at it cannot be true. It is inconceivable that a structure of that
size was erected with the necessary engineering support, significant
excavation and removal of materials, and the considerable amount of
concrete and other building supplies that would be required , where the
evidence reveals no plausible means of access other than through the
Applicants' property , with the Applicants’ having no in volvement in that
development.
[45] I therefore reject the Applicants’ version as untrue.
[46] As Mr Koroma submitted, this case is about the rule of law . The
advancing of a factually untrue case undermines the effective operation of
judicial processes through which the rule of law is maintained.
[47] To advance such a case in order to protect an unlaw ful development
that infringes upon a place of local environmental importance also
undermines the environmental values protected by the constitutional and
statutory framework described above, and further undermines the rule of law
Page 15
as manifested in the obligation of citizens to comply with unchallenged
statutory and regulatory obligations.
Urgency
[48] It may be surprising to turn to the question of urgency at the end of
this judgment. I do so because to bring an urgent application that is not
urgent ordinarily results merely in the matter being struck from the roll 21
rather than being dismissed. In my view, this application does not warrant
being kept alive for hearing on another day.
[49] The application was brought under cover of a certificate of urgency
issued on 1 July 2026 for hearing on 8 July 2026. This was in circumstances
where, as set out above, notices ha d been delivered by the municipality
throughout 2025 and where the electricity supply was terminated on
21 February 2026.
[50] Plainly the matter was not urgent, or at the very least, any claim to
urgency was unsustainable because of delay on the part of the Applicants.
[51] The effect of bringing the application urgently could , but for the
efforts of the municipality to deliver papers on truncated time periods , have
resulted in this application being heard upon a fundamentally untruthful set of
facts.
Abuse of process
[52] I have reached the conclusion that when the issue of urgency is
coupled with the failure to present a fair and complete factual version to the
court that the application as a whole constituted an abuse.
21 Commissioner for South African Revenue Service v Hawker Air Services (Pty) Ltd;
Commissioner for South African Revenue Service v Hawker Aviation Services Partnership
and Others 2006 (4) SA 292 (SCA) at [9]
Page 16
[53] The Constitutional Court 22, later echoed in the Supreme Court of
Appeal23, has made clear that:
“An abuse of process can occur in a variety of ways. The litigation may be frivolous
or vexatious. A litigant may seek to use the legal process for an ulterior purpose or
by recourse to conduct that subverts fundamental values of the rule of law. The
behaviour of the litigant may be so tainted with turpitude that the court will not come
to such a litigant’s aid. The unclean hands doctrine references this latter type of
abuse. It is the abusive conduct of the litigant that, in a proper case, may warrant the
exercise of the court’s power to non -suit such a litigant. The court does so, even
though the litigant claims a right that they would vindicate in the court
proceedings.”24
The approach of the municipality
[54] The statutory powers entrusted to municipalities exist to secure
orderly development and to give practical effect to constitutional
environmental obligations . These are the powers that the municipality
exercised.
[55] The conduct of the municipality in this matter included repeated
inspections, the delivery of the requisite building contravention notices,
engagement in correspondence, and the exercise of the powers of the
municipality to terminate electricity supply. None of these powers and
functions were expressly directed at the preservation of an area of
environmental importance – yet, as a consequence of the upholding of the
rule of law, that is the effect that they had.
[56] Ms Mdl alose who appeared for the municipality together with her
instructing attorneys and the municipal officials that clearly gave assistance,
are commended and thanked for the clear and comprehensive affidavits put
22 Villar Crop Protection (Pty) Ltd v Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH 2023 (4) BCLR 461
(CC)
23 PFC Properties (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services and
Others 2024 (1) SA 400 (SCA)
24 Villar Crop supra at [77]
Page 17
before the court on urgent time periods and the cogent a rgument that they
presented.
Costs
[57] Having determined that , in my view, the application was an abuse it
follows that costs should be ordered on a punitive scale.
Order
[58] For the reasons set out above, I make the following order:
1. The application is dismissed.
2. The Applicants are to pay the Respondent’s costs on an
attorney and client scale.
______________
P Wallis AJ
Page 18
Appearances
Counsel for Applicants: Adv MSS Koroma
Trust Account Advocate: Suite 712, Office Towers, Overport City
430 Peter Mokaba Ridge
Ref: Adv Koroma
Counsel for Respondent: Adv SP Mdlalose
Attorneys for Respondent: Dwarika, Naidoo and Company
Umhlanga
Ref: ND/PH/E26017/ETH