Fisher and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Another (25462/10) [2013] ZAGPPHC 415 (8 November 2013)

Fisher and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Another (25462/10) [2013] ZAGPPHC 415 (8 November 2013)

The court found that the agreements of sale between the applicants and the first respondent were invalid ab initio due to non-compliance with section 79(18)(b) of the Local Government Ordinance No 15 of 1986, which requires public notice and opportunity for objections before disposal of municipal property. The applicants, who were employees of the municipality, should have known the agreements were invalid, yet pursued litigation up to the hearing date. However, the court considered that the applicants had made substantial improvements to the properties and suffered financial prejudice, and that the first respondent also failed in its statutory obligations. In the interests of fairness...

Citation
[2013] ZAGPPHC 415
Parties
Applicant: Lorenzo Enrico Fisher; Applicant: Colin Martin Rowe; Applicant: Daniel Theodorus Brits; Applicant: Mazimani Syteven Chauke; Applicant: Saniel Benjamin Roos; Applicant: Jospehus Johannes Pretorius; Applicant: Deidre Barnard; Applicant: Carel Jacobus Veramaak; Applicant: Hendrik Leo du Preez; Applicant: Arnoldi Vaughan; Applicant: M Roos; Defendant: Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality; Defendant: Registrar of Deeds
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 November 2013
Case Number
25462/10
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Costs Determination After Withdrawal of Application
Outcome
Each party to pay its own costs.
Judges
N.M. Mavundla
Legal Topics
Municipal Property Disposal, Invalid Contract, Costs Award, Specific Performance
Land and Property Civil Procedure Municipal Property Disposal Invalid Contract Costs Award Specific Performance

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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lorenzo Enrico Fisher

Applicant

Colin Martin Rowe

Applicant

Daniel Theodorus Brits

Applicant

Mazimani Syteven Chauke

Applicant

Saniel Benjamin Roos

Applicant

Jospehus Johannes Pretorius

Applicant

Deidre Barnard

Applicant

Carel Jacobus Veramaak

Applicant

Hendrik Leo du Preez

Applicant

Arnoldi Vaughan

Applicant

M Roos

Applicant

Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality

Defendant

Registrar of Deeds

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Costs Determination After Withdrawal of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants should be liable for the costs after withdrawing their application.
  2. 2 Whether the agreements of sale for municipal property were valid and enforceable.
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent complied with statutory requirements for disposal of municipal property.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the agreements of sale between the applicants and the first respondent were invalid ab initio due to non-compliance with section 79(18)(b) of the Local Government Ordinance No 15 of 1986, which requires public notice and opportunity for objections before disposal of municipal property. The applicants, who were employees of the municipality, should have known the agreements were invalid, yet pursued litigation up to the hearing date. However, the court considered that the applicants had made substantial improvements to the properties and suffered financial prejudice, and that the first respondent also failed in its statutory obligations. In the interests of fairness...

Court Disposition

Each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • Each party is ordered to pay its own costs.