Lombardy Development (Pty) Ltd and Others v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Another (794621/18) [2021] ZAGPPHC 521 (5 August 2021)

Lombardy Development (Pty) Ltd and Others v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Another (794621/18) [2021] ZAGPPHC 521 (5 August 2021)

The court held that the applicants failed to make out a case for the delivery and debatement of municipal accounts in their founding affidavit. The relief sought regarding statements and debatement was introduced for the first time in the replying affidavit, heads of argument, and oral submissions, which is impermissible. The applicants did not plead or prove the existence of a statutory, contractual, or fiduciary relationship entitling them to debatement of account. The statutory provisions relied upon do not confer a right to debatement, only to receive statements and to dispute accounts through prescribed mechanisms. The first applicant was found to be duly authorised to depose to...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 521
Parties
Applicant: Lombardy Development (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Karin Geldenhuis; Applicant: Johannes Fredrik Geldenhuys; Applicant: Cecilia Loots; Applicant: Lisa Hopkinson; Applicant: Lyn Cher Calle; Applicant: Emily Mathilda Bezuidenhout; Applicant: Nicolaas Wynand Bezuidenhout; Applicant: Liza Hamman; Applicant: Hugh Arundel van der Westhuizen; Applicant: Johan Siebert van Onselen; Applicant: Marion Grassini; Applicant: Carlos Arturo Grassini; Applicant: Marcos Arturo Grassini; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Municipal Manager of the Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 August 2021
Case Number
794621/18
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Opposed Motion; Judgment After Virtual Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs; contempt application declared moot; condonation for late filing granted.
Judges
E.K. Tsatsi
Legal Topics
Municipal Property Rates Act, Municipal Systems Act, Debate of Account, Valuation Rolls, Judicial Review, Costs Orders
Administrative Law Land and Property Municipal Property Rates Act Municipal Systems Act Debate of Account Valuation Rolls Judicial Review Costs Orders

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lombardy Development (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Karin Geldenhuis

Applicant

Johannes Fredrik Geldenhuys

Applicant

Cecilia Loots

Applicant

Lisa Hopkinson

Applicant

Lyn Cher Calle

Applicant

Emily Mathilda Bezuidenhout

Applicant

Nicolaas Wynand Bezuidenhout

Applicant

Liza Hamman

Applicant

Hugh Arundel van der Westhuizen

Applicant

Johan Siebert van Onselen

Applicant

Marion Grassini

Applicant

Carlos Arturo Grassini

Applicant

Marcos Arturo Grassini

Applicant

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Municipal Manager of the Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Opposed Motion; Judgment After Virtual Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants made out a case for the delivery and debatement of municipal accounts in their founding affidavit.
  2. 2 Whether new causes of action and evidence introduced in replying affidavits are permissible.
  3. 3 Whether the first applicant was authorised to depose to affidavits on behalf of other applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicants failed to make out a case for the delivery and debatement of municipal accounts in their founding affidavit. The relief sought regarding statements and debatement was introduced for the first time in the replying affidavit, heads of argument, and oral submissions, which is impermissible. The applicants did not plead or prove the existence of a statutory, contractual, or fiduciary relationship entitling them to debatement of account. The statutory provisions relied upon do not confer a right to debatement, only to receive statements and to dispute accounts through prescribed mechanisms. The first applicant was found to be duly authorised to depose to...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs; contempt application declared moot; condonation for late filing granted.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D and 5 of the applicants' amended notice of motion are dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
  • Applicants are ordered to pay respondents' costs incurred in opposing the previous contempt of court application from 30 November 2018 to 2 June 2021, including costs of two counsel.