Canton Trading 95 (Pty) Ltd and Others v Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality (3717/2013) [2014] ZALCJHB 260 (10 July 2014)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(EASTERN CAPE DIVISION – GRAHAMSTOWN)

CASE NO: 3717/2013

DATE HEARD: 12/06/2014

DATE DELIVERED: 10/7/14

REPORTABLE

In the matter between:

CANTON TRADING 95 (PTY) LTD 1ST APPLICANT

LEON MAYER GOLDBLUM N.O. 2ND APPLICANT

SIMEON JON GOLDBLUM N.O. 3RD APPLICANT

TREVOR BELING N.O. 4TH

APPLICANT

and

BUFFALO CITY METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY RESPONDENT

Application to compel municipality to amend records concerning sale of property and to furnish account of calculation of amount paid for issue of rates clearance certificate – municipality furnishing account and undertaking that records amended – despite this, first applicant continued to receive demands for payment in respect of erf it had sold, indicative of records not having been amended – municipality then opposing, the only issue being costs – technical defences raised, including that first applicant had no right to an account because procedures in Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 (PAIA) not complied with – held that PAIA did not apply – first applicant had right to an account arising from Local Government: Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 and Local Government Property Rates Act 6 of 2004 –none of other technical defences having merit – municipality ordered to pay applicants’ costs on attorney and client scale.

JUDGMENT

PLASKET J

[1] The first applicant (Canton Trading) was the owner of four erven in East London, within the area of jurisdiction of the respondent, the Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality (the municipality). It sold these erven to the Goldblum Family Trust (the trust) represented by the second, third and fourth applicants. At the time of the sale an application was made for the consolidation of the four erven into one. That application was successful, the King William’s Town Deeds Office issuing a certificate to this effect.

[2] Despite the transfer of the consolidated erf having been effected and Canton Trading having paid the amount requested to allow for the issue of a rates clearance certificate by the municipality, it continued to receive statements of account and letters of demand in respect of the erven it had disposed of. This created the impression that the municipality had not altered its records to reflect the true state of affairs.

[3] As a result, Canton Trading first requested and then demanded that the municipality amend its records to reflect the true position. As it had simply paid what it had been asked to pay so that the rates clearance certificate could be issued and transfer of the erven could take place, it also requested of the municipality to account to it –

to explain how it arrived at the figures it had said were due.

[4] One would have imagined that requests of so innocuous, simple and routine a nature would have been complied with by return of post. After all, public administration in South Africa is governed, according to our supreme law, by ‘the democratic values and principles enshrined in the Constitution’[1] and these include the promotion and maintenance of a ‘high standard of professional ethics’;[2] the efficient, economic and effective use of resources;[3] the provision of impartial, fair, equitable and unbiased services;[4] responsiveness to peoples’ needs;[5] accountability;[6] and the fostering of transparency by ‘providing the public with timely, accessible and accurate information’.[7] These principles are incorporated by reference into the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 (the Systems Act).[8] What is more, the Constitutional Court, in President of the Republic of South Africa & others v South African Rugby Football Union & others[9] stated in the clearest of terms that the Constitution ‘is committed to establishing and maintaining an efficient, equitable and ethical public administration which respects fundamental rights and is accountable to the broader public’.

[5] Alas, despite the ringing phrases of s 195(1) of the Constitution and the Constitutional Court, Canton Trading’s requests were met with the inscrutable face of the bureaucratic sphinx. That, in turn, led to this application in which the following relief was sought:

‘1. The respondent is ordered to correct its records to show the following:

1.1 That the erven mentioned in paragraph 5.1 of the founding affidavit were consolidated to form Erf 73307, East London, Local Municipality of Buffalo City, Division of East London, Province of the Eastern Cape; and

1.2 That the Goldblum Family Trust became the registered owner of the consolidated erf on 13 June 2012;

2. The respondent is ordered to furnish, within seven (7) days from the date of this order, the first applicant with the detailed computation and calculation of the amount of R83,975.36 which was paid by the first applicant for purposes of obtaining the rates clearance certificate (annexure “G” to the founding affidavit);

3. The applicants are given leave to approach this court, after supplementing its founding affidavit, for an order directing the respondent to make payment to the first applicant of any amounts which are shown by the detailed calculations referred to in prayer 2 above, not to have been payable by the first applicant to the respondent, if any;

4. The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application on the scale as between attorney and client; and

5. Further and/or alternative relief.’

[6] Once the application had been initiated, one would have thought that the matter would then have been settled speedily and relatively inexpensively. After all, the municipality would be using public funds, raised from the rates and taxes paid by ratepayers including, ironically, the applicants. As it was put in a Canadian case, a ‘municipality is not a complaisant benefactor, a fairy godmother to lavish gifts indiscriminately’ but its money is ‘in no very remote sense the money of all the rate-payers’.[10] The responsible and accountable use of public funds by municipalities is a statutory duty.[11]

[7] The papers were issued on 6 November 2013 and served on the respondent (twice) on 19 November 2013. The matter was to be heard on 5 December 2013. On that day, however, it was postponed for a week to 12 December 2013 with the municipality being ordered to pay the costs of the postponement. On 12 December 2013, the municipality filed a notice of opposition and the matter was postponed to 13 February 2014 with the costs reserved.

[8] On 6 February 2014, Canton Trading filed a notice in terms of rule 15A of this court’s rules of practice, which stated that the matter would proceed on 13 February 2014 – presumably as what is referred to in rule 15(k)(i) as an ‘uncontested opposed’ application.

[9] On 10 February 2014, Canton Trading’s attorney, Mr Samuel Schoeman, filed a supporting affidavit in which he reported that a certain amount of progress had been made. He stated that he had had dealings with members of the municipality’s legal department. He had received a letter confirming the consolidation of the erven and stating that accounts in respect of the consolidated erf would henceforth be sent to the trust. A breakdown of how the rates clearance certificate figures were calculated was also provided. Despite this rather strong indication that the matter had been settled, Schoeman then received a letter of demand, directed at Canton Trading, from the municipality’s attorneys demanding payment of R19 901.92 in respect of ‘arrear municipal rates and services’. In the light of this, his affidavit ended thus:

‘I respectfully request the High Court to grant an order as set out in paragraph 1.1 and 1.2 of the Notice of Motion together with a costs order which the Honourable Court may deem fair in the circumstances.’

[10] Yet again, one would have expected the matter to have been resolved on an unopposed basis on 13 February 2014. On 12 February 2014, however, the municipality filed an answering affidavit, deposed to by its municipal manager, Mr Andile Fani, in which a series of technical points were taken and no substantive defence to the limited relief claimed was raised. Worse still, an attempt was made to revive the settled issue of the calculation of the rates clearance amount.

[11] Fani’s answering affidavit takes the following points: (a) the second, third and fourth applicants have not deposed to affidavits and, as the first applicant has no authority to represent the trust, their application is fatally defective; (b) the application was not served in accordance with rule 4(1)(a)(viii) of the uniform rules and this rendered the application fatally defective; (c) insufficient time to enter an appearance to defend was given by the applicants to the municipality; (d) Canton Trading has no standing to seek an order in terms of paragraph 1 of the Notice of Motion because it is no longer the owner of the property concerned; and (e) the order in terms of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Notice of Motion is incompetent because Canton Trading did not request the information concerned in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 (the PAIA), it being clear that its ‘informal request’ was refused.

[12] In respect of the rates clearance certificate issue, Fani said that the ‘legal department on its own decided to get the detailed computation and calculation of R83 975.36 which was paid by the first applicant for the rates clearance certificate to be issued’.

[13] He then proceeded to say:

’12. This was done in preparation of the opposition of this application. On 4th December 2013 it was agreed between Ms Mtati, a legal advisor of the Respondent and Mr Schoeman of the First Applicant’s attorneys that the said information would be furnished to the First Applicant’s attorney at 12:00 noon on 9th December 2013. It was agreed between them that if the information is furnished by that time to the satisfaction of the First Applicant,

then the application would not proceed further. On the same day, 9th December 2013, Mr Schoeman confirmed telephonically that the First Applicant received the information, it was in order and that his client was happy.

13. The application had been postponed from 5th December 2013 to the following week, the 12 December 2013 for the matter to be settled. The Respondent tendered costs for the postponement on 5 December 2013. When the First Applicant was happy with the information received on 9th December as agreed, they should have withdrawn the application.

14. Instead, the First Applicant’s legal representative, on 9th December 2013, just before offices of the Respondent closed, telephoned and demanded that the costs of the appearance on 12 December 2013 be paid by the Respondent.

15. It is submitted that there was no legal basis for this demand hence the Respondent decided to oppose the application as it could not justify consent for payment of such costs from public funds.’

[14] When he turned to answering the specific provisions of the founding affidavit, he said the following:

’16. It is significant to mention that the First Applicant is satisfied with the amount it paid for the rates clearance certificate to be issued. Therefore there was no reason for it to complain about the account charged whatsoever.

17. In any event, monthly accounts were sent to the First Applicant for services and rates. If there was a query it would have been raised in terms of the Act and the officials of the First Applicant had to visit the offices of debt management to deal with the matter. It failed to do so.

18. The Respondent was entitled to refuse to give information wherein the First Applicant had in any event, as set out above, not compiled with proper procedures of the Act.

19. Lastly, for consolidation of accounts to occur and registration of a new consumer to occur, such consumer should approach the relevant office and complete prescribed forms with contain details of the consumer, property and whether the property is commercial or residential. It is not sufficient to merely send annexure “H” advising that the properties have been consolidated. A title deed has to be produced to that office of the Municipality. In this case, such did not occur.’

[15] It would appear that the purpose of Fani’s affidavit was to oppose the granting of a cost order against the municipality. Ironically, because of the lateness of its filing, the matter was postponed sine die on 13 February 2014 with the municipality to pay the costs of the postponement on an attorney and client scale. I was advised from the bar by Ms Watt, who appeared for the applicants, that the applicants were prepared to take costs on an unopposed basis on 13 February 2014 had the matter been settled as they had anticipated it would.

[16] In the light of the municipality’s letter to Schoeman of 9 December 2013 giving the breakdown of the rates clearance certificate amount and informing him that the municipality’s records had been amended as requested, Fani’s assertions that the request for an account had been refused and the amendment of the records had not occurred because Canton Trading had not gone to the ‘relevant office’ and ‘completed prescribed forms’ are both factually incorrect and disingenuous.

[17] Once the matter was opposed, Canton Trading filed a replying affidavit in which the deponent to it stated, inter alia, that it had received a demand for the payment of R20 575.88 for ‘rates and/or service charges’ coupled with a notice that the municipality intended to disconnect Canton Trading’s electricity on account of its failure to pay this amount. This was followed by the issue of summons against it by the municipality for an amount it claimed to be due in respect of one of the erven that had been sold to the trust.

[18] The matter was set down for determination as an opposed application on 12 June 2014. The first issue I had to decide, however, was whether to admit a further affidavit deposed to by Fani. I admitted it.

[19] In this affidavit Fani alleged that a mistake had been made in calculating the amount payable by Canton Trading in order to be issued with a rates clearance certificate and that it still owed the municipality for rates.

‘9. The First Applicant was quite aware that it owed a debt in respect of Erf 6992, East London as at 22 May 2012, in the sum of R23 611.90, which was required before transfer to a subsequent owner could occur. For purposes of issuing a rates clearance certificate, that sum increased to R26 048.02. Unfortunately, when the figures were sent to the First Applicant, the sum of R26 048.02 was erroneously left out. As a result, the sum of R26 048.02 was not paid. On 9th December 2013 the First Applicant received a proper breakdown, a copy of which is annexed hereto marked “AF1”’. This breakdown reflects the sum of R26 048.02 which is still owed. The said sum has been recalculated and the First Applicant has been credited with a sum of money for interest and late closure of accounts being the difference between R26 048.02 and R19 901.92. The debt owed is R19 901.92.

10. That debt has been referred to the attorneys of the [respondent] for collection. The debt cannot be written off because the [respondent] is obliged to collect debts due to it. The First Applicant was happy with that breakdown in December 2013. There cannot be any confusion as to why there is a demand for its settlement.’

[20] The contents of this affidavit, bluntly stated, are both confused and disingenuous. Fani stated that Canton Trading knew it owed more in rates than it paid. He referred to the breakdown of 9 December 2013 as the basis for that knowledge.

[21] The document that was forwarded to Canton Trading on that day differs from ‘AF1’ to his affidavit. Whereas the document sent to Canton Trading on 9 December 2013 is a one page document that reflects a total of R83 975.36 owing, ‘AF1’ is a two page document that that states that erf 6992 East London was ‘omitted not included’ and then lists amounts owed in respect of this erf. Finally, ‘AF1’ reflects a total payment of R83 975.36 having been made by Canton Trading, leaving a balance in respect of erf 6992 which it reflects as ‘not included’.

[22] Fani’s affidavit is thus premised on an untruth – that Canton Trading knew it owed more than it paid. It is clear from his affidavit that a mistake was made in the calculation of the rates that Canton Trading owed. Yet there is not a word of apology in Fani’s affidavit but rather a brazen attempt to lay the blame – on an erroneous factual basis – on Canton Trading.

[23] Whatever its defects, Fani’s supplementary affidavit explains why Canton Trading continued to receive demands for payment from the municipality. Once this explanation was forthcoming, there was no longer any reason to doubt that the municipality had, in fact, amended its records. By this stage then, the matter was settled but for the question of costs. One wonders why, when the mistake was discovered, the municipality did not immediately contact Canton Trading and explain the problem to it. The fact that the fault for the misunderstanding lay with the municipality makes it all the more inexplicable that the municipality persisted in its opposition.

[24] I now deal with the points that Fani raised in his answering affidavit.

[25] The first point is that the application of the second, third and fourth applicants is fatally defective because none of them have filed affidavits. This overlooks the fact that they passed a resolution in which they resolved to support Canton Trading’s application and join the proceedings as applicants. That, in my view, is sufficient in the context of this matter because it is implicit in the founding affidavit that it is deposed to on behalf of all four applicants.

[26] The second point is that the application is fatally defective because it was not served in accordance with rule 4(1)(a)(viii) of the uniform rules. This rule provides that ‘where a local authority . . . is to be served, service shall be effected by delivering a copy to the town clerk or assistant town clerk or mayor of such local authority . . .’.

[27] The papers were served twice on 19 November 2013. The returns of service reflect that they were served on a Ms B Scharneck and a Ms M Pankratz respectively, both ostensibly responsible employees, both not less than 16 years of age and both being in control of and present at what are described as the principal places of business of the municipality, Old Mutual Building, 49 Oxford Street, East London and Munifin Centre, 29 Oxford Street, East London respectively.

[28] Fani stated that his office is situated at neither of these locations and nor is the mayor’s. He claims that the municipality suffered prejudice because the application was ‘misplaced’ from 22 November 2013, only came to the attention of the legal department on 27 November 2013 and to his attention on or about 2 December 2013. (I may add that it strains incredulity somewhat that both sets of papers, served on different employees, were misplaced.)

[29] He does not say what this prejudice was. Given that the matter was in the process of being settled – and, leaving aside the municipality’s mistake in the calculation for the rates clearance certificate and the consequences of that, the merits were settled on 9 December 2013 – it is difficult to envisage what the prejudice might have been. Indeed, it was only when Canton Trading sought its costs (on an unopposed basis, at that stage) that it was decided to oppose the application as the municipality ‘could not justify consent for payment of such costs from public funds’. In these circumstances, I find that the municipality was not prejudiced by the defective service and that the service was effective. To the extent necessary, the defect in service is condoned.

[30] The third point is that the application is fatally defective because insufficient time was afforded to the municipality to file a notice of opposition. Fani claims that the municipality should have been afforded 21 days to file its notice of opposition because it lies outside the jurisdiction of this court. He apparently has s 24 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 in mind. This section provides that the ‘time allowed for entering an appearance to a civil summons served outside the area of jurisdiction of the Division [of the High Court] in which it was issued, shall be not less than’ a month if it ‘is to be served at a place more than 150 kilometres from the court out of which it was issued’ and two weeks in other cases.

[31] This point fails at the first hurdle. East London is not outside the jurisdiction of this court. The section therefore has no application. Rule 6(5)(b)(iii) of the uniform rules provides that in application proceedings an applicant must afford a respondent a period of ‘not less than five days after service’ within which to file a notice of opposition. In this case, the papers were served on 19 November 2013 and the municipality was given until 2 December 2013 to file its notice of opposition. There was, accordingly, no short service.

[32] The fourth point is that Canton Trading has no standing to seek an order directing the municipality to amend its records to reflect the consolidation of the erven that it sold and to reflect the trust as the new owner. It made the request when it sold the property that it owned, and was treated by the municipality as still being the owner with demands being made of it to pay amounts the municipality claimed were owed by it. That, in my view, gives it a sufficient interest. Furthermore, it remains a ratepayer in respect of erf 6992 in the sense that, according to the municipality, it has not paid its rates in full from when it was the owner of that erf.

[33] The fifth point raised by Fani is that the application, in respect of the rates clearance certificate calculations, is fatally defective because Canton Trading, in requesting that information, did not comply with the procedural requirements of the PAIA. In my view, the PAIA does not apply in a case such as this when a ratepayer requests a municipality to account as to how an amount alleged to be due to the municipality was calculated, and I have no doubt that a municipality cannot refuse to furnish this information. Fani’s suggestion that a municipality can simply refuse to provide this information unless a proper request is made in terms of the PAIA is a cynical abuse of the fundamental right of a ratepayer to information regarding his or her account with the municipality. It ill-behoves a person in his position to take a point like this.

[34] Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the notice of motion sought orders directing the municipality to account to Canton Trading in respect of the amount that it paid in order to obtain the rates clearance certificate, and a squaring of its account thereafter. The obligation to account may arise in one of three ways as was explained by Millin J in Maitland Cattle Dealers (Pty) Ltd v Lyons[12] when he said that ‘nobody is entitled to sue at common law for an account unless the person sued stands in a fiduciary relationship to him, or some Statute or contract has imposed upon him the duty to give an account’.

[35] Section 4(1)(c) of the Systems Act provides that a municipality has the right to finance its affairs by ‘charging fees for services’ and by ‘imposing surcharges on fees, rates on property and, to the extent authorised by national legislation, other taxes, levies and duties’. Members of the local community have a right, in terms of s 5(1)(b) to ‘prompt responses to their written or oral communications, including complaints’ directed to the municipality. They also have a duty, in terms of s 5(2)(b) to ‘pay promptly service fees, surcharges on fees, rates on property and other taxes, levies and duties imposed by the municipality’.

[36] Section 95 provides for what it terms customer care and management. It states:

‘In relation to the levying of rates and other taxes by a municipality and the charging of fees for municipal services, a municipality must, within its financial and administrative capacity-

(a) establish a sound customer management system that aims to create a positive and reciprocal relationship between persons liable for these payments and the municipality, and where applicable, a service provider,

(b) establish mechanisms for users of services and ratepayers to give feedback to the municipality or other service provider regarding the quality of the services and the performance of the service provider;

(c) take reasonable steps to ensure that users of services are informed of the costs involved in service provision, the reasons for the payment of service fees, and the manner in which monies raised from the service are utilised;

(d) where the consumption of services has to be measured, take reasonable steps to ensure that the consumption by individual users of services is measured through accurate and verifiable metering systems;

(e) ensure that persons liable for payments, receive regular and accurate accounts that indicate the basis for calculating the amounts due;

(f) provide accessible mechanisms for those persons to query or verify accounts and metered consumption, and appeal procedures which allow such persons to receive prompt redress for inaccurate accounts;

(g) provide accessible mechanisms for dealing with complaints from such persons, together with prompt replies and corrective action by the municipality;

(h) provide mechanisms to monitor the response time and efficiency in complying with paragraph (g); and

(i) provide accessible pay points and other mechanisms for settling accounts or for making pre-payments for services.’

[37] Section 27(1) of the Local Government: Municipal Property Rates Act 6 of 2004 (the Rates Act) also places a duty on a municipality to render an account for rates to a ratepayer. It provides:

‘A municipality must furnish each person liable for the payment of a rate with a written account specifying-

(a) the amount due for rates payable;

(b) the date on or before which the amount is payable;

(c) how the amount was calculated;

(d) the market value of the property;

(e) if the property is subject to any compulsory phasing-in discount in terms of section 21, the amount of the discount; and

(f) if the property is subject to any additional rate in terms of section 22, the amount due for additional rates.’

[38] It is apparent from these sections that a municipality is obliged to account properly to ratepayers for both rates and service charges. This was made clear by Yacoob J in Mkontwana v Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality & another; Bisset & others v Buffalo City Municipality & others; Transfer Rights Action Campaign & others v MEC, Local Government and Housing, Gauteng & others (KwaZulu-Natal Law Society and Msunduzi Municipality as amici curiae)[13] when he stated that ‘[t]he municipality has a duty to send out regular accounts’ and ‘develop a culture of payment’

as well as to ‘take appropriate steps for the collection of amounts due’ to it.

[39] As a statutory obligation to account to ratepayers and consumers of municipal services rests on a municipality, a person may demand an account in respect of either service charges or rates. And if a municipality refuses to render an account, the ratepayer or consumer may compel the municipality to render the account. The right to do so does not arise from the PAIA but from the Systems Act and the Rates Act, both of which, in this respect, are consistent with and give effect to the right of access to information held by a municipality.

[40] I have found that none of the points taken by Fani have any merit. There is a more fundamental reason why his opposition must fail. It is that the municipality conceded the relief claimed by the applicants. The matter was settled on 9 December 2013 – apparently against the wishes of Fani – when the information concerning the rates clearance certificate was furnished and the assurance was given that the municipality’s records had been amended as requested. It is so that the impression was then created that the records had not been amended because Canton Trading continued to receive demands and that the calculation of the rates that it owed now appears to have been incorrect. The situation has now been explained by Fani but only at a very late stage. Ironically, while taking the view that Canton Trading was not entitled to the information that it sought, he nonetheless furnished it when he supplemented the breakdown of the amount allegedly owed by Canton Trading that had been provided on 9 December 2013.

[41] This matter has been a waste of time and money. It should have been settled. The opposition – ostensibly to avoid paying the applicants’ costs on an unopposed basis – has had the result of a dramatic escalation of the costs that the municipality must pay. I shall put it bluntly. The opposition to this application was frivolous and ill-conceived. The ratepayers of East London, who have funded the municipality’s litigation, have not been well served.

[42] As the relief claimed by the applicants was conceded by the municipality, and its opposition had no merit in any event, the only order that I shall make is a costs order. As I have found that the opposition to the application was frivolous and ill-conceived, an order of costs on an attorney and client scale is warranted.[14] The costs reserved on 12 December 2013 should also be paid by the municipality on the same scale.

[43] I make the following order.

The respondent is ordered to pay the applicants’ costs, including the costs reserved on 12 December 2013, on an attorney and client scale.

____________________________

C Plasket

Judge of the High Court

APPEARANCES

Applicants: K Watt instructed by Nolte Smit Inc

Respondent: J Koekemoer instructed by NN Dullabh & Co

[1] Constitution, s 195(1).

[2] Constitution, s 195(1)(a).

[3] Constitution, s 195(1)(b).

[4] Constitution, s 195(1)(d).

[5] Constitution, s 195(1)(e).

[6] Constitution, s 195(1)(f).

[7] Constitution, s 195(1)(h).

[8] Section 6.

[9] President of the Republic of South Africa & others v South African Rugby Football Union & others 2000 (1) SA 1 (CC) para 133.

[10] Re West Nissouri Continuation Board (1917) 38 Ontario Law Reports 207. See too Plasket ‘Protecting the Public Purse: Appropriate Relief and Costs Orders Against Officials’ (2000) 117 SALJ 151.

[11] Systems Act, s 4(2)(a), s 4(2)(d) and s 38(c); Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act 56 of 2003, s 78(1)(b).

[12] Maitland Cattle Dealers (Pty) Ltd v Lyons 1943 WLD 1 at 19. See too Doyle & another v Fleet Motors PE (Pty) Ltd 1971 (3) SA 760 (A) at 762F-G; Victor Products (SA) (Pty) Ltd v Lateulere Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd 1975 (1) SA 961 (W) at 963B-D; Rectifier and Communications Systems (Pty) Ltd v Harrison & others 1981 (2) SA 283 (C) at 286D-H; ABSA Bank Bpk v Janse van Rensburg 2002 (3) SA 701 (SCA) para 15.

[13] Mkontwana v Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality & another; Bisset & others v Buffalo City Municipality & others; Transfer Rights Action Campaign & others v MEC, Local Government and Housing, Gauteng & others (KwaZulu-Natal Law Society and Msunduzi Municipality as amici curiae) 2005 (1) SA 530 (CC) para 47.

[14] Page v ABSA Bank Ltd t/a Volkskas Bank & another 2000 (2) SA 661 (E) at 667B-D.