Democratic Alliance v Municipal Demarcation Board and Others (70915/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 886 (1 March 2017)

Democratic Alliance v Municipal Demarcation Board and Others (70915/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 886 (1 March 2017)

The court found that the applicant acted unreasonably by withdrawing its application only one day before the scheduled hearing, after the respondents had incurred significant costs in preparation. The Biowatch principle, which generally protects unsuccessful constitutional litigants from adverse costs orders, does not apply where the litigant's conduct is unreasonable or deserving of censure. The applicant had ample opportunity to withdraw earlier, particularly after the local government elections had taken place and the respondents had raised mootness in their heads of argument. The court held that the respondents were entitled to a costs order, including the costs of two counsel for the...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 886
Parties
Applicant: Democratic Alliance; Respondent: Municipal Demarcation Board; Respondent: Minister of Cooperative Governance & Traditional Affairs; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council for Cooperative Governance, Traditional Affairs & Human Settlements, Eastern Cape Province; Respondent: Free State Province; Respondent: KwaZulu-Natal Province; Respondent: Limpopo Province; Respondent: Mpumalanga Province; Respondent: Northern Cape Province; Respondent: Local Government & Human Settlements, North West Province; Respondent: South African Local Government Association; Respondent: Independent Electoral Commission
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 March 2017
Case Number
70915/2015
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Withdrawal and Costs Order
Outcome
Application for withdrawal granted; applicant ordered to pay costs of first to ninth respondents, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Molopa-Sethosa
Legal Topics
Municipal Boundaries, Review of Administrative Action, Costs in Constitutional Litigation, Withdrawal of Application
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Municipal Boundaries Review of Administrative Action Costs in Constitutional Litigation Withdrawal of Application

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Democratic Alliance

Applicant

Municipal Demarcation Board

Respondent

Minister of Cooperative Governance & Traditional Affairs

Respondent

Member of the Executive Council for Cooperative Governance, Traditional Affairs & Human Settlements, Eastern Cape Province

Respondent

Free State Province

Respondent

KwaZulu-Natal Province

Respondent

Limpopo Province

Respondent

Mpumalanga Province

Respondent

Northern Cape Province

Respondent

Local Government & Human Settlements, North West Province

Respondent

South African Local Government Association

Respondent

Independent Electoral Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Withdrawal and Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's withdrawal of the review application at the last minute justifies a costs order against it.
  2. 2 Whether the Biowatch principle regarding costs in constitutional litigation applies to the applicant's withdrawal.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents are entitled to costs, including costs of two counsel, due to the applicant's conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant acted unreasonably by withdrawing its application only one day before the scheduled hearing, after the respondents had incurred significant costs in preparation. The Biowatch principle, which generally protects unsuccessful constitutional litigants from adverse costs orders, does not apply where the litigant's conduct is unreasonable or deserving of censure. The applicant had ample opportunity to withdraw earlier, particularly after the local government elections had taken place and the respondents had raised mootness in their heads of argument. The court held that the respondents were entitled to a costs order, including the costs of two counsel for the...

Court Disposition

Application for withdrawal granted; applicant ordered to pay costs of first to ninth respondents, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application for the withdrawal of the application is granted.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the first to ninth respondents, which costs shall include the costs of two counsel in respect of the first to ninth respondents.