Gcora and Another v Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality and Another (1414/2016 ; 992/2016) [2025] ZAECQBHC 10 (1 April 2025)

Gcora and Another v Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality and Another (1414/2016 ; 992/2016) [2025] ZAECQBHC 10 (1 April 2025)

The court held that the applicants, having been declared vexatious litigants, bore the evidential burden to demonstrate bona fide claims with prima facie merit in their requests for leave to institute proceedings. Both requests were unsupported by affidavit and failed to identify a clear cause of action or relief sought. The proposed interdict proceedings sought to challenge cost orders and judgments that had reached finality, which is impermissible. The enforcement proceedings were based on mediation outcomes, but the applicants had no contractual nexus with the municipality or the MEC, and any rights arising from mediation were due to the contractor, not the applicants. All payments due...

Citation
[2025] ZAECQBHC 10
Parties
Applicant: Sipho Gcora; Applicant: Gobo-Gcora Construction and Project Management CC; Respondent: Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality; Respondent: MEC for the Department of Eastern Cape Human Settlements; Respondent: Public Protector SA
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 April 2025
Case Number
1414/2016 ; 992/2016
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Two Rulings Refusing Leave to Institute Proceedings Under Section 2(1)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act.
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal in respect of both rulings are dismissed with costs, limited to the costs of one counsel on scale B.
Judges
J W Eksteen
Legal Topics
Vexatious Litigation, Leave to Institute Proceedings, Public Protector Remedial Action, Municipal Tender Disputes, Prescription of Claims, Joinder and Locus Standi
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Vexatious Litigation Leave to Institute Proceedings Public Protector Remedial Action Municipal Tender Disputes Prescription of Claims Joinder and Locus Standi

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 5 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sipho Gcora

Applicant

Gobo-Gcora Construction and Project Management CC

Applicant

Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality

Respondent

MEC for the Department of Eastern Cape Human Settlements

Respondent

Public Protector SA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Applications for Leave to Appeal Against Two Rulings Refusing Leave to Institute Proceedings Under Section 2(1)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have discharged the evidential burden to obtain leave to institute proceedings as vexatious litigants under section 2(1)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act.
  2. 2 Whether the proposed interdict and enforcement proceedings have any reasonable prospect of success or constitute an abuse of process.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have any contractual or other legal right to claim payment from the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality or the MEC for Human Settlements.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicants, having been declared vexatious litigants, bore the evidential burden to demonstrate bona fide claims with prima facie merit in their requests for leave to institute proceedings. Both requests were unsupported by affidavit and failed to identify a clear cause of action or relief sought. The proposed interdict proceedings sought to challenge cost orders and judgments that had reached finality, which is impermissible. The enforcement proceedings were based on mediation outcomes, but the applicants had no contractual nexus with the municipality or the MEC, and any rights arising from mediation were due to the contractor, not the applicants. All payments due...

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal in respect of both rulings are dismissed with costs, limited to the costs of one counsel on scale B.

Orders

  • The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the respondents, limited to the costs of one counsel, to be taxed on scale B.