Matjhabeng Local Municipality v Media News (Pty) Ltd (963/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 126 (19 May 2021)
- Citation
- [2021] ZAFSHC 126
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- P.E. Molitsoane
- Case number
- 963/2021
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- P.E. Molitsoane
- Case number
- 963/2021
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the respondent had clearly indicated its intention not to oppose the application, both through withdrawal of opposition and confirmation under oath. The applicant had made out a case for the relief sought, demonstrating that the appointment of the respondent and the service delivery agreement were unlawful. The court held that condonation for the delay in bringing the application was justified, as insisting on proper service would serve no purpose and only delay finalisation. The respondent was interdicted from performing any functions or services under the impugned agreement within the applicant's municipal boundaries. No order as to costs was made.
Court disposition
Application granted; appointment and service delivery agreement set aside; respondent interdicted from performing functions under the agreement; condonation granted for delay; no order as to costs.
Orders
- The applicant’s failure to bring the application and seek relief as soon as reasonably possible after discovery of the unlawfulness is condoned.
- It is declared that the appointment of the respondent and the service delivery agreement concluded on 18 May 2018 are set aside.
- The respondent is immediately and forthwith interdicted and restrained from performing any functions or activities in respect of billboards and advertisements within the applicant’s municipal boundaries.
- No order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Matjhabeng Local Municipality
Applicant Counsel: Adv. J. MitchleyMedia News (Pty) Ltd
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Unopposed Motion
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appointment of the respondent and the service delivery agreement were unlawful and should be set aside.
- 02
Whether condonation should be granted for the applicant's delay in bringing the application.
- 03
Whether the respondent should be interdicted from performing functions under the impugned agreement.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contended that the appointment of the respondent and the service delivery agreement concluded on 18 May 2018 were unlawful and should be declared null and void or set aside. The applicant argued that the respondent's contract had lapsed on 8 April 2021 and that no settlement had been reached between the parties. The applicant further submitted that the respondent had been notified of the hearing date and did not oppose the application, and that condonation should be granted for any delay in bringing the application.
- Respondent
- The respondent initially opposed the application through its attorneys but later withdrew its intention to oppose, indicating that a settlement had been reached. Subsequently, the respondent's attorneys withdrew from the proceedings, and the respondent confirmed under oath that it did not intend to oppose the application. No substantive argument was presented by the respondent.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
None cited
Condonation may be granted where the interests of justice require it and where there is no prejudice to the respondent.
- 02
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 3 of 2000 (PAJA)
Unlawful administrative action may be set aside by the court upon application by an interested party.
- 03
None cited
A party may be interdicted from performing functions under an unlawful agreement within municipal boundaries.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the respondent had clearly indicated its intention not to oppose the application, both through withdrawal of opposition and confirmation under oath. The applicant had made out a case for the relief sought, demonstrating that the appointment of the respondent and the service delivery agreement were unlawful. The court held that condonation for the delay in bringing the application was justified, as insisting on proper service would serve no purpose and only delay finalisation. The respondent was interdicted from performing any functions or services under the impugned agreement within the applicant's municipal boundaries. No order as to costs was made.
Obiter and limits
- The insistence on proper service in circumstances where the respondent has unequivocally indicated non-opposition would only serve to delay the finalisation of the matter.
- The respondent's withdrawal of opposition and confirmation under oath that it does not intend to oppose the application are sufficient to proceed with adjudication.
Court disposition
Application granted; appointment and service delivery agreement set aside; respondent interdicted from performing functions under the agreement; condonation granted for delay; no order as to costs.
- The applicant’s failure to bring the application and seek relief as soon as reasonably possible after discovery of the unlawfulness is condoned.
- It is declared that the appointment of the respondent and the service delivery agreement concluded on 18 May 2018 are set aside.
- The respondent is immediately and forthwith interdicted and restrained from performing any functions or activities in respect of billboards and advertisements within the applicant’s municipal boundaries.
- No order as to costs.
Source and reliance status
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Judgment
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case No: 963/2021
In the matter between:
MATJHABENG
LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
APPLICANT
and
MEDIA NEWS (PTY) LTD
RESPONDENT
______________
JUDGMENT BY: MOLITSOANE, J
_______________
HEARD ON: 06 MAY 2021
_____________
DELIVERED ON: 19 MAY 2021
[1] This matter was enrolled in the unopposed roll. The applicant seeks that the appointment of the
respondent and the service delivery agreement concluded by the applicant and respondent on 18 May 2018 to be declared unlawful and null and void, alternatively, the said appointment and service delivery be set aside.
[2] During the hearing of this application, I raised a concern about the service of the notice of set down with Counsel for the applicant. Counsel informed me that according to her instructions the date of the hearing was indeed communicated to the respondent and undertook to provide proof at a later stage before final adjudication of this matter. It is on that basis that I allowed her to proceed with this application.
[3] It needs to be mentioned that the respondent was at the initial stage legally represented. Upon service of the application the respondent filed the notice to oppose through its attorneys. About a month later the respondent filed a notice of withdrawal of intention to oppose and in the said notice also indicated that the parties have reached a settlement.
[4] The applicant reacted to this Notice of Withdrawal by sending correspondence by email on 16 April 2021 to the respondent’s attorneys of record. I quote the said email in full:
“Your notice to withdraw as attorney of record refers.
Kindly take note that the parties have not reached a settlement.
As explained to you in your telephone conversation your client has
submitted a proposal directly to the Municipality for future working
Relationship. Your client’s contract with Matjhabeng has lapsed on 8 April 2021. We will now proceed to enrol the matter in order to finalise the Application.
Should you not agree with the contents hereof you are kindly requested to urgently furnish us with your client’s application for condonation and late filing of an opposing affidavit.
Should we not receive the above mentioned by Monday 19 April 2021 we will accept that you consent to the matter be enrolled and it be made a Court Order.”
[5] Following this letter the respondent did not file the opposing affidavit. Instead the attorneys of record of the respondent withdrew from the proceedings. The notice of withdrawal as attorneys of record as well as the notice of set down were, however, defective in that none of them were served on the respondent. As indicated above this defect was pointed to Counsel. As undertaken, the respondent filed proof by way of an affidavit deposed to by its CEO. He confirmed that the notice of set down was served on the erstwhile attorneys of record of the respondent although he had not received it. He, however, confirmed under oath that he does not intend to oppose the application. It is my considered view that insisting on the proper service of this application would serve no purpose in view of clear indication of non-opposition by the respondent, save to delay the finalisation of this application. Having regard to the papers filed of record I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for the relief sought. I make the following order:
ORDER
1. The applicant’s failure to bring this application and to seek the relief claimed hereunder, as soon as reasonably possible after discovery of the unlawfulness of the appointment of the respondent and service delivery agreement sought to be set aside, is condoned.
2. It is declared that the appointment of Respondent – and the Service Delivery Agreement concluded by Applicant and Respondent on 18 May 2018 for the administration, control, monitoring and developing of outdoor advertising and implementation of the Municipality’s by-laws relating to outdoor advertising and outdoor advertising policies and the collection of monies from advertisers in respect thereof be set aside.
3. That the respondent be immediately and forthwith interdicted and restrained from performing and/or carrying out the functions/services identified in annexure “FA1” to the founding affidavit and any activities in respect of billboards and advertisements within the Applicant’s municipal boundaries.
4. There is no order as to costs.
____
P.E. MOLITSOANE, J
On behalf of the Applicant: Adv. J.Mitchley
Instructed by:
Hill McHardy and Herbst
BLOEMFONTEIN
On behalf of the Respondent: No Apperance
News Media (Pty) Ltd.
Room 41, the Strip,
314 Stateway
MATJHABENG.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.