Kgetlengrivier Concerned Residents and Another v Kgetlengrivier Local Municipality and Others (CIV APP FB 04/22; UM69/2021; UM79/2021) [2023] ZANWHC 29; [2023] 2 All SA 452 (NWM) (17 March 2023)

Kgetlengrivier Concerned Residents and Another v Kgetlengrivier Local Municipality and Others (CIV APP FB 04/22; UM69/2021; UM79/2021) [2023] ZANWHC 29; [2023] 2 All SA 452 (NWM) (17 March 2023)

The appeals were dismissed as the interim orders had lapsed or were settled by agreement, and the procedural requirements for contempt were not met. The Municipal Manager and Municipality breached constitutional duties, but the orders for imprisonment were not competent in motion proceedings and violated due process. The MEC for COGHSTA was not liable for costs or contempt as he was not a party to the original proceedings and payment delays were explained. The retake of water treatment plants by KCC and Pionier was unlawful, as Magalies Water Board was the appointed implementing agent. The cost orders against the appellants and Pionier were justified, and the Biowatch principle did not...

Citation
[2023] ZANWHC 29
Parties
Appellant: Kgetlengrivier Concerned Citizens; Appellant: Mr Carel van Heerden; Appellant: Pionier Dienstemaatskappy (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Kgetlengrivier Local Municipality; Respondent: Joseph Mogale; Respondent: Bojanala Platinum District Municipality; Respondent: MEC: Environmental Affairs, North West; Respondent: Minister of Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation; Respondent: Minister of Environmental Affairs; Respondent: MEC: COGTA, North West; Respondent: Magalies Water Board
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 March 2023
Case Number
CIV APP FB 04/22; UM69/2021; UM79/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Full Bench Appeal From High Court Orders in Three Consolidated Matters
Outcome
Appeals under case numbers UM 270/21, UM 69/2021 and UM 79/2021 dismissed.
Judges
Hendricks, Petersen, Mongale
Legal Topics
Right to Water, Municipal Service Delivery Failure, Contempt of Court, Environmental Pollution, Section 24 and 27 Constitution, Water Services Act
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Right to Water Municipal Service Delivery Failure Contempt of Court Environmental Pollution Section 24 and 27 Constitution +1 more

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kgetlengrivier Concerned Citizens

Appellant

Mr Carel van Heerden

Appellant

Pionier Dienstemaatskappy (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Kgetlengrivier Local Municipality

Respondent

Joseph Mogale

Respondent

Bojanala Platinum District Municipality

Respondent

MEC: Environmental Affairs, North West

Respondent

Minister of Human Settlements, Water and Sanitation

Respondent

Minister of Environmental Affairs

Respondent

MEC: COGTA, North West

Respondent

Magalies Water Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Full Bench Appeal From High Court Orders in Three Consolidated Matters

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Municipal Manager and Municipality were in contempt of court orders regarding water and sanitation service delivery.
  2. 2 Whether the MEC for Cooperative Governance, Human Settlements and Traditional Affairs (COGHSTA) was liable for costs and in contempt for late payment of invoices.
  3. 3 Whether the retake of water treatment plants by the Concerned Citizens and Pionier was lawful.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals were dismissed as the interim orders had lapsed or were settled by agreement, and the procedural requirements for contempt were not met. The Municipal Manager and Municipality breached constitutional duties, but the orders for imprisonment were not competent in motion proceedings and violated due process. The MEC for COGHSTA was not liable for costs or contempt as he was not a party to the original proceedings and payment delays were explained. The retake of water treatment plants by KCC and Pionier was unlawful, as Magalies Water Board was the appointed implementing agent. The cost orders against the appellants and Pionier were justified, and the Biowatch principle did not...

Court Disposition

Appeals under case numbers UM 270/21, UM 69/2021 and UM 79/2021 dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeals under case numbers UM 270/21, UM 69/2021 and UM 79/2021 are dismissed.
  • No order as to costs in UM 270/21.