Matjhabeng Local Municipality v Media News (Pty) Ltd (963/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 126 (19 May 2021)

Matjhabeng Local Municipality v Media News (Pty) Ltd (963/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 126 (19 May 2021)

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.

Citation
[2021] ZAFSHC 126
Parties
Applicant: Matjhabeng Local Municipality; Respondent: Media News (Pty) Ltd
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 May 2021
Case Number
963/2021
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Unopposed Motion
Outcome
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.
Judges
P.E. Molitsoane
Legal Topics
Unlawful Appointment, Service Delivery Agreement, Condonation, Interdict, Municipal by Laws
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Unlawful Appointment Service Delivery Agreement Condonation Interdict Municipal by Laws

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matjhabeng Local Municipality

Applicant

Media News (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Unopposed Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appointment of the respondent and the service delivery agreement were unlawful and should be set aside.
  2. 2 Whether condonation should be granted for the applicant's delay in bringing the application.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent should be interdicted from performing functions under the impugned agreement.

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.

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.