Bela Bela Local Municipality and Another v Dikala Plant Hire CC (95187/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 413 (3 April 2017)
- Citation
- [2017] ZAGPPHC 413
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- G. T. Avvakoumides
- Case number
- 95187/2015
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- G. T. Avvakoumides
- Case number
- 95187/2015
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal and granted leave to appeal to the full court of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria. The court held that the submissions made by the second respondent did not constitute valid grounds for appeal. Regarding the employment of senior counsel, the court considered itself bound by the precedent that the discretion lies with the taxing master and not the court at this stage.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal to the full court of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria, is granted. Costs of the application shall be costs in the appeal.
Orders
- Leave to appeal to the full court of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria, is granted.
- Costs of the application shall be costs in the appeal.
02
Material facts
Parties
Bela Bela Local Municipality
Applicant Counsel: M. M. Rip SCBalimi Barui Trading (Pty) Ltd
Applicant Counsel: M. G. D. Maritz SCDikala Plant Hire CC
Respondent Counsel: S. G. Wagener SC03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment/orders Dated 9 November 2016.
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the judgment and orders dated 9 November 2016.
- 02
Whether the submissions made by the second respondent constitute valid grounds for appeal.
- 03
Whether the employment of senior counsel is justified at this stage.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants argued that there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal regarding the orders made in the judgment dated 9 November 2016. They submitted that the complexity of the matter justified the employment of senior counsel.
- Respondent
- The respondent contended that the submissions made by the second respondent did not set out any valid grounds for appeal and were inappropriate. The respondent also referenced the discretion of the taxing master regarding the employment of senior counsel, relying on relevant case law.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v The Chairman of the Valuation Appeal Board for the City of Johannesburg and Connaught Properties (Pty) Ltd 2014 ZASCA 5 (12 March 2014)
If a matter is deserving of the employment of senior counsel, it is wrong for a court to attempt to fetter the taxing master's discretion.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal and granted leave to appeal to the full court of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria. The court held that the submissions made by the second respondent did not constitute valid grounds for appeal. Regarding the employment of senior counsel, the court considered itself bound by the precedent that the discretion lies with the taxing master and not the court at this stage.
Obiter and limits
- The matter was complex enough to justify the employment of senior counsel, but the court is bound by precedent regarding the taxing master's discretion.
- Submissions that do not set out any grounds for appeal are inappropriate and do not assist the court.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal to the full court of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria, is granted. Costs of the application shall be costs in the appeal.
- Leave to appeal to the full court of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria, is granted.
- Costs of the application shall be costs in the appeal.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Order
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE NUMBER: 95187 / 2015
DATE OF HEARING: 6 FEBRUARY 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 3 APRIL 2017
In the matter between:
BELA
BELA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY First Applicant
BALIMI BARUI TRADING (PTY) LTD Second Applicant
and
DIKALA
PLANT HIRE CC Respondent
JUDGMENT
AVVAKOUMIDES. AJ
[1] This is an application by both applicants for leave to appeal against my judgment dated 9 November 2016, more particularly the orders at paragraphs 20.1 to 20.5 thereof.
[2] I have considered the arguments by counsel for the applicants and the respondent. Having done so, I am of the opinion that there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
[3] Insofar as the submission made by the second respondent at paragraph 3 of its application for leave to appeal is concerned, such submission does not set out any ground for appeal and, in my view, was inappropriately made.
[4] Whether there is justification for the employment of senior counsel is not an issue for me to decide at this stage. Counsel for the Applicants and the Respondent parties are aware of the decision on this point in The City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v The Chairman of the Valuation Appeal Board for the City of Johannesburg and Connaught Properties (Pty) Ltd 2014 ZASCA 5 (12 March 2014) wherein Leach JA stated that " .....matter is deserving of the employment of senor counsel (which it is clearly is) it would be wrong for a court to somehow attempt to fetter that discretion" , meaning the taxing master's discretion. I consider myself bound to this decision despite being of the view that the matter was complex enough to employ the services of senior counsel.
[5] Consequently the following order is made:
[5.1] Leave to appeal to the full court of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria, is granted.
[5.2] Costs of the application shall be costs in the appeal.
________
G. T. AWAKOUMIDES
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
DATE: 3 APRIL 2017
Representation for Respondent:
Counsel: S. G. Wagener S. C.
Instructed by: Geyser Van Rooyen Attorneys
Representation for First Applicant:
Counsel: M. M. Rip SC
Instructed by: Moloto Attorneys
Representation for Second Applicant:
Counsel: M. G. D. Maritz SC
Instructed by: Van Heerden and Krugel Attorneys
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.