Hendricks v City of Cape Town and Another (12803/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 344 (13 August 2025)

SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)

Case Number: 12803/2024

In the matter between:

MAUREEN MARY HENDRICKS Applicant

and

CITY OF CAPE TOWN

First Respondent

TRANSNET LIMITED

Second Respondent

Coram

:

Da Silva Salie, J

Judgment delivered

:

13 August 2025

Counsel for Applicant

:

Adv. H G McLachlan

Instructed by

:

Brian Lutzno Kraus & Ass.

Counsel for First Respondent

:

Adv. Khanyisa Ngqata

Instructed by

:

Adriaans Attorneys

Counsel for Second Respondent

:

Adv. Ntokozo Mjiyako

Instructed by

:

Ndlamhlaba PP Attorneys

JUDGMENT EX TEMPORE HANDED DOWN ON 13 AUGUST 2025

DA SILVA SALIE, J:

Order

"(i) The application for the joinder of Transnet Limited as Second Defendant in the action under case number 12803/2024 is upheld.

(ii) The Second Respondent is joined as Second Defendant to the action.

(iii) The Second Respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application in terms of Rule 10, including the costs of counsel. (Scale A)”

DA SILVA SALIE, J:

[1] This is an interlocutory application brought in terms of Rule 10(3) of the Uniform Rules of Court for the joinder of the Second Respondent, Transnet Limited (“Transnet”), as a party to the pending action instituted by the Applicant against the First Respondent, the City of Cape Town (“the City”). The Applicant seeks damages in the amount of R1 492 300 arising from injuries sustained when she fell into an open, unprotected manhole on 17 August 2022.

[2] The City has filed a special plea of misjoinder and non-joinder, averring that the manhole in question forms part of Transnet’s infrastructure, being a boundary inspection chamber on property owned by Transnet (Erf 6[...] Loumar, Stikland Train Station), for which the City disclaims responsibility. Transnet, on the other hand, denies ownership or responsibility for the manhole, contending that it is situated on a public sidewalk and forms part of the City’s sewer installation. The City filed a Notice to Abide and is not opposing this application.

[3] It is common cause that:

(a) the accident occurred close to Stikland Train Station.

(b) the property Erf 6[...] Loumar belongs to Transnet; and

(c) the City covered the manhole after the incident.

[4] It is in dispute whether the manhole is part of municipal infrastructure or Transnet infrastructure.

[5] The determination of that issue will necessarily affect both the City and Transnet. In these circumstances, the question is whether Transnet has a “direct and substantial interest” in the subject matter of the litigation, as contemplated in Rule 10(3).

[6] The test is well-established: a party must be joined if they have a legal interest in the subject matter of the action which may be prejudicially affected by the judgment of the court.

[7] The purpose of joinder under Rule 10(3) is to ensure that all parties whose legal interests are directly implicated are before the Court so as to promote judicial efficiency, avoid fragmented litigation, prevent inconsistent findings, and secure fair adjudication.

[8] The allegations between the City and Transnet regarding ownership and responsibility for the manhole give rise to a real and substantial risk of inconsistent judgments if both are not before the Court at trial.

[9] As I see it and, in my view, If Transnet is not joined and the City is found not liable on the basis that the manhole belongs to Transnet, the Applicant would be compelled to institute separate proceedings against Transnet, possibly raising prescription defences and duplicating factual inquiries.

[10] On behalf of Transnet it is argued that Transnet bears no responsibility for the manhole goes to the merits of the action. This is not the threshold question of joinder.

[11] The fact that Transnet denies liability does not negate its direct and substantial interest in the subject matter. The very dispute as to whether the manhole is Transnet’s responsibility underscores that interest.

[12] The joinder will not cause prejudice beyond requiring Transnet to participate in the proceedings — a consequence inherent in the joinder of any party. In contrast, the prejudice to the Applicant in refusing joinder, given the proximity to the three-year prescription period, is significant.

[13] I am satisfied that Transnet has a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the action and that its presence is necessary for the Court to adjudicate the matter completely and effectually.

DA SILVA SALIE,

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

WESTERN CAPE DIVISION