~
a
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
In the matter between
THE DEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE
and
MANGAUNG METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY
THE MUNICIPAL MANAGER: MANGAUNG
METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY
Not reportable
Case no: 2026-027289
APPLICANT
FIRST RESPONDENT
SECOND RESPONDENT
Neutral citation: Democratic Alliance v Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality and
Another (2026-027289) [2026] ZAFSHC 419 (9 September 2026)
Coram: MATSHELO AJ
Heard: 31 August 2026
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties' representatives by email and released to SAFLII. The date for hand-down is
deemed to be 9 September 2026.
Summary : Application for condonation - leave to appeal - dismissed.
ORDER
1 The application for condonation is dismissed.
2 The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of first and second respondents in the
condonation application. The costs of counsel are on scale B.
JUDGMENT
MatsheloAJ
[ 1] The applicant seeks condonation application for the late filing of its application for
leave to appeal. The court handed down its ex-tempore judgment on 5 June 2026. The
applicant filed her leave to appeal on the Judiciary's court online electronic filing platform
on 26 June 2026, and filed a hard copy on 7 July 2026.
[2] The applicant submitted to pay the costs of the application unless the application
is opposed. The first and second respondents did not oppose the application for
condonation.
[3] I heard both the application for condonation and leave to appeal, though counsel
for applicant was not aware that the application for condonation had been filed. However,
he addressed the court on it, and counsel for respondents chose not to oppose the
granting thereof.
[4] The applicant states that on 26 June 2026 he caused the application for leave to
appeal to be submitted online. He understood that the application was timeously
submitted. However, on 3 July 2026 he received an email notification to the effect that
the document had been rejected. The reason for the rejection, with an added message
by the registrar, was, 'You should file hard copies.'
[51 The applicant states that on 3 July 2026 he learned that a person who deals with
appeals at the High Court, the appeals and review registry clerk, was out of office when
his candidate attorney, Ms Michaela Swart, attempted to file a hard copy.
[6] On 6 July 2026, upon the appeals and review registry clerk's return to office, Ms
Swart was informed that the application for leave to appeal must be accompanied by a
court order and judgment. The Applicant states that on 7 July 2026, he took appropriate
steps to ensure that the hard copy filing bundle; with the court order and judgment, was
prepared and filed.
[7] The applicant states that the delay was slight and was not occasioned by any
disregard of the rules of the court or any wilful default on his part. He further states that
he had already taken steps to file the application within the stipulated time by submitting
the application online on 26 June 2026.
[8] The applicant states that respondents will not suffer any prejudice if condonation
is granted because the delay is minimal and concerns filing and not any substantive
failure to prosecute the application. He further states that the respondents were aware of
his leave to appeal since 26 June 2026.
Discussion
[9] The applicant shifts the blame to his candidate attorney for failure to file the
application on time. He states that he received a message via email informing him that
he is expected to file a hard copy. The question is, did he know about this requirement as
the principal? If yes, why did he not inform his candidate attorney? The candidate attorney
is under his tutelage. An attorney is expected to be acquainted with the Uniform Rules of
this Court and the directives of the division.
[1 O] He cannot blame non-compliance of the prescripts on the candidate attorney. It
is understandable if the candidate attorney is not acquainted with the procedures
regarding the filing of the application for leave to appeal, she is a candidate attorney after
all. The buck stops with her principal. She relies on him for guidance. The blame is on the
doorstep of the principal instead of trying to shift the blame to the candidate attorney. He
doorstep of the principal instead of trying to shift the blame to the candidate attorney. He
is expected to guide the candidate attorney as to exactly what is expected of her when
filing the leave to appeal application.
(11] The applicant contends that the respondents are not prejudiced by the delay in
filing her condonation application. This is not a determining factor. The court in Ferris and
Another v Firstrand Bank Limited and Another (Ferris) 1 held that the absence of prejudice
is not the factor used to determine the grant of condonation. There is no automatic grant.
[12] In the Ferris case, the applicants attributed the delay to their correspondent
attorney.2 The applicant also attributed the delay to the candidate attorney. The
explanation by applicant's attorney is not satisfactory and does not warrant the granting
of the condonation.
[13] In Grootboom v National Prosecuting Authority3, the Constitutional Court said the
following:
'It is now trite that condonation cannot be had for the mere asking. A party seeking condonation
must make out a case entitling it to the court's indulgence. It must show sufficient cause. This
requires a party to give a full explanation for the non-compliance with the rules or court's
directions. Of great significance, the explanation must be reasonable enough to excuse the
default'.4
Parties who litigate must not take the court for granted. I feel in this instance the court
was taken for granted. What aggravated the situation is when even counsel for applicant
was not even aware that there is a condonation application. He was made aware by the
court, it is then that he placed an argument for condonation to the court.
[14] Application for condonation is not a mere formality. It is an application that must
be taken and even argued with the seriousness that it deserves. The main application (in
this case leave to appeal) falls on it. If it refused the leave to appeal application falls off.
[15] The court in Melane v Santam lnsurance5 held that the following are core factors
that the court considers in granting a condonation application, viz: the degree of lateness,
explanation for delay or the reasons for the late referral, prospects of success in the
explanation for delay or the reasons for the late referral, prospects of success in the
1 Ferris and Another v Firstrand Bank Limited and Another (CCT 52/13) [2013) ZACC 46; 2014 (3) SA 39
(CC); 2014 (3) BCLR 321 (CC) para 11.
2 Ibid para 11.
3 Grootboom v National Prosecuting Authority and Another (CCT 08/13) [2013] ZACC 37; 2014 (2) SA 68
(CC); 2014 (1) BCLR 65 (CC); [2014) 1 BLLR 1 (CC); (2014) 35 ILJ 121 (CC).
4 Ibid para 23.
5 Melane v Sanlam Insurance Co Ltd 1962 (4) SA 531 (A).
underlying appeal, importance of the case,6 the prejudice that either party may suffer , and
the administration of justice. Though the delay is minimal, the explanation for the delay is
not satisfactory. There are no prospects of success in the underlying appeal and the delay
itself is prejudicial to the respondent. (My emphasis.) I am not convinced nor persuaded
that it is in the interest of justice that the application for condonation be granted .
Costs
(16] The fact that the condonation application was unopposed does not relieve the
applicant from the responsibility to bear the burden of costs.7 Moreover, when the
application is not granted. It is trite that the costs follow the cause. The court exercises its
discretion in the awarding of costs. Therefore, the applicant is responsible for the costs
of this application even though it is not granted.
[~7] I will adopt the approach of the court in Mkhwebane v Office of the Public
Protector and Others8 where the court deemed it not necessary to address the appl ication
for leave to appeal given its refusal to grant the application for condonation. 9 I would have
dismissed the application for leave to appeal. I do not see how another court will arrive at
a different decision. Since I heard both applications, I can simply say that the applicant
did not provide compelling reasons, and there are no prospects of success.
[18] Therefore, I make the following order:
1 The application for condonation is dismissed.
2 The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of first and second respondents in the
condonation application. The costs of counsel are on scale B.
"--- PMATSHELO
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
6 Ibid at 532C.
1 Sanlam Versekeringsmaatskappy Bpk v Byleveldt 1973 (2) SA 146 (A).
8 Mkhwebane v Office of the Public Protector and Others (2024-023495) [2026) ZAGPPHC 362 (15 April
2026).
9 Ibid para 32.
Appearances
For the Applicant
Instructed by:
For the Respondents:
Instructed by:
Adv N Snellenburg SC
MJ van Rensburg
Adv PT Masihleho
T Masoetsa & G Goolam