Meyer v Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality and Another (4041/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 295 (10 November 2021)
The court found that the applicant issued an ultimatum in the letter of demand, affording the respondents until close of business on 2 September 2021 to reconnect the water supply. The respondents acted on the letter and reconnected the supply before the deadline, making the urgent application unnecessary and premature. The applicant was entitled to costs for the initial consultation and letter of demand due to the respondents' unlawful disconnection, but not for the costs of the application itself, which was launched before the ultimatum expired. The court exercised its discretion to apportion costs fairly, ordering the respondents to pay the applicant's costs for the initial steps and...
- Citation
- [2021] ZAFSHC 295
- Parties
- Applicant: Francois Terblanche Meyer; Respondent: Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Municipal Manager: Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 10 November 2021
- Case Number
- 4041/2021
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Opposed Roll on Costs After Urgent Application Resolved by Agreement
- Outcome
- Costs apportioned: respondents to pay applicant's costs for initial consultation and letter of demand on attorney and client scale; applicant to pay respondents' costs for the application, including costs of 2 September 2021.
- Judges
- I VAN RHYN
- Legal Topics
- Municipal Services Disconnection, Costs Award, Attorney and Client Scale, Unlawful Administrative Action
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Francois Terblanche Meyer
Applicant
Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality
Respondent
Municipal Manager: Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Opposed Roll on Costs After Urgent Application Resolved by Agreement
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to costs for the urgent application after the water supply was reconnected before the ultimatum expired.
- 2 Whether the respondents' conduct in disconnecting the water supply was unlawful and justified an attorney and client costs order.
- 3 Whether the applicant acted prematurely in launching the urgent application before the deadline in the letter of demand.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant issued an ultimatum in the letter of demand, affording the respondents until close of business on 2 September 2021 to reconnect the water supply. The respondents acted on the letter and reconnected the supply before the deadline, making the urgent application unnecessary and premature. The applicant was entitled to costs for the initial consultation and letter of demand due to the respondents' unlawful disconnection, but not for the costs of the application itself, which was launched before the ultimatum expired. The court exercised its discretion to apportion costs fairly, ordering the respondents to pay the applicant's costs for the initial steps and...
Court Disposition
Costs apportioned: respondents to pay applicant's costs for initial consultation and letter of demand on attorney and client scale; applicant to pay respondents' costs for the application, including costs of 2 September 2021.
Orders
- The first and second respondents, jointly and severally, shall pay the applicant's costs of the initial consultation with the attorney of record and the costs associated with the letter of demand dated 1 September 2021 on an attorney and client scale.
- The applicant shall pay the respondents' costs of the application, including the costs of 2 September 2021.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment