Appel and Others v Democratic Alliance and Another (19623/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 26 (4 February 2025)

Appel and Others v Democratic Alliance and Another (19623/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 26 (4 February 2025)

The court found that the urgency claimed by the intervening applicants was entirely self-created, as they had ample time to intervene after being served with the main application but failed to do so. Their explanation for the delay was inadequate and did not justify urgent relief. The applicants did not demonstrate a direct and substantial interest in the outcome of the litigation, nor did they specify or provide evidence of such interest. As individual councillors, they lacked rights beyond those conferred on the Council as a collective. Furthermore, the application for leave to appeal was filed outside the prescribed period without an accompanying condonation application, resulting in...

Citation
[2025] ZAWCHC 26
Parties
Applicant: Derick Antony Appel; Applicant: Bongiwe Mkhwibiso; Applicant: Mamothipane Sylvia Shale; Applicant: Mzwanele Mpambani; Applicant: Rinah Lorraine Mienies; Applicant: Mbongeni Alfred Nomkoko; Applicant: Monwabisi Raymond Nongxaza; Respondent: Democratic Alliance; Respondent: Lincoln De Bruyn; Respondent: Council of Theewaterskloof Local Municipality; Respondent: Speaker of Theewaterskloof Local Municipality; Respondent: Theewaterskloof Local Municipality; Respondent: John Michels; Respondent: Theunis Zimmerman
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 February 2025
Case Number
19623/2024
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Intervention and Leave to Appeal After Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Lekhuleni
Legal Topics
Intervention Application, Urgency in Motion Proceedings, Municipal Council Powers, Leave to Appeal, Condonation for Late Appeal
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Intervention Application Urgency in Motion Proceedings Municipal Council Powers Leave to Appeal Condonation for Late Appeal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Derick Antony Appel

Applicant

Bongiwe Mkhwibiso

Applicant

Mamothipane Sylvia Shale

Applicant

Mzwanele Mpambani

Applicant

Rinah Lorraine Mienies

Applicant

Mbongeni Alfred Nomkoko

Applicant

Monwabisi Raymond Nongxaza

Applicant

Democratic Alliance

Respondent

Lincoln De Bruyn

Respondent

Council of Theewaterskloof Local Municipality

Respondent

Speaker of Theewaterskloof Local Municipality

Respondent

Theewaterskloof Local Municipality

Respondent

John Michels

Respondent

Theunis Zimmerman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Intervention and Leave to Appeal After Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the intervening applicants' application was brought with the requisite urgency or whether the urgency was self-created.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants should be granted leave to intervene in the main application.
  3. 3 Whether the court should grant permission to the intervening applicants to file an application for leave to appeal the judgment delivered on 15 November 2024.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the urgency claimed by the intervening applicants was entirely self-created, as they had ample time to intervene after being served with the main application but failed to do so. Their explanation for the delay was inadequate and did not justify urgent relief. The applicants did not demonstrate a direct and substantial interest in the outcome of the litigation, nor did they specify or provide evidence of such interest. As individual councillors, they lacked rights beyond those conferred on the Council as a collective. Furthermore, the application for leave to appeal was filed outside the prescribed period without an accompanying condonation application, resulting in...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicants' application is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of this application jointly and severally, including the costs of Counsel on a party and party scale B.