City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others v Ryckloff Bellegings (Pty) Ltd (18156/19) [2023] ZAGPJHC 868 (7 June 2023)
The court found that the applicants for leave to appeal have demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal, as required by section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act. Furthermore, the appeal raises questions of law of importance and the administration of justice requires that the Supreme Court of Appeal...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] ZAGPJHC 868
- Parties
- Applicant: City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality; Applicant: Executive Mayor; Applicant: City Manager; Applicant: Director of Housing; Respondent: Ms Ntombekhaya Bonkolo and 70 Others; Respondent: Ryckloff Bellegings (Pty) Ltd
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 18156/19
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
- Judges
- GC Wright
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Eviction Proceedings, Superior Courts Act, Administration of Justice
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality
Applicant
Executive Mayor
Applicant
City Manager
Applicant
Director of Housing
Applicant
Ms Ntombekhaya Bonkolo and 70 Others
Respondent
Ryckloff Bellegings (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
- 2 Whether the appeal involves a question of law of importance.
- 3 Whether the administration of justice requires consideration of the appeal by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants for leave to appeal have demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal, as required by section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act. Furthermore, the appeal raises questions of law of importance and the administration of justice requires that the Supreme Court of Appeal consider the matter. The court was satisfied that the requirements for leave to appeal were met and accordingly granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Orders
- The 1st to 4th applicants are granted leave to appeal the order of Wright J.
- Leave is granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
39 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 18156/19
NOT REPORTABLE
NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES
REVISED
07/06/23
In the matter between:
The CITY of JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY (72nd RESPONDENT in the main application) 1st APPLICANT THE EXECUTIVE MAYOR (73rd RESPONDENT in the main application ) 2nd APPLICANT THE CITY MANAGER (74th RESPONDENT in the main application ) 3rd APPLICANT THE DIRECTOR OF HOUSING ( 75th RESPONDENT in the main application ) 4th APPLICANT And MS NTOMBEKHAYA BONKOLO AND 70 OTHERS, 1-71st RESPONDENTS in the main application And RYCKLOFF–BELLEGINGS (PTY) LTD APPLICANT in the main application
JUDGMENT – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL – WRIGHT J
1. On 4 October 2022 I heard the main application which had been brought by Ryckloff for the eviction of Ms Ntombekhaya Bonkolo and other persons. I handed down a typed, signed judgment on the same day.
2. The 72nd to 75th Respondents in the main application now seek leave to appeal my order to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
3. It would appear that their attorney timeously delivered the present application for leave to appeal on 13 October 2022.
4. It was only on 28 February 2023 that I learned, through my clerk of the existence of the present application for leave to appeal. Despite my best efforts, the application for leave was heard only on 7 June 2023.
5. Only the 1st to 71st respondents in the main application oppose leave to appeal. Ryckloff supports leave and to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
6. With the provisions of section 17(1)(a)i of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013 in mind, I am of the view that the applicants for leave to appeal have a reasonable prospect on appeal.
7. Under section 17(6)(a)i, I am of the view that the appeal involves a question of law of importance.
8. Under section 17(6)(a)ii, I consider that the administration of justice, generally and in this case requires consideration of the appeal by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
ORDER
1. The 1st to 4th applicants, being the 72nd to 75th Respondents in the main application are granted leave to appeal the order of Wright J.
2. Leave is to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
3. Costs in the appeal.
GC Wright
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Johannesburg
HEARD : 7 June 2023
DELIVERED : 7 June 2023
APPEARANCES :
1st to 4th APPLICANTS (72nd to 75th RESPONDENTS in the main application)
Adv C GEORGIADES SC
Adv N MAHLANGU
1st to 71st RESPONDENTS in the main application
Adv I DE VOS
76th RESPONDENT No appearance
APPLICANT in the main application
Adv W MOKHARE SC
Adv M MAJOZI
AMICUS CURIAE
No appearance