Millu v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Another (supplemental judgment) (25039/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 420 (29 April 2024)
The court found that Mr Ngwana's role in the dispute was that of a subordinate functionary, acting as a conduit for City Power and lacking decision-making authority regarding the litigation strategy. His affidavit demonstrated bona fides and clarified that he did not unilaterally decide to forgo filing heads of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPJHC 420
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter Tanya Millu; Respondent: City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: City Power SOC Ltd
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 25039/2021
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Supplementary Judgment Following Principal Judgment and Cost Representations
- Outcome
- Mr Ngwana is not held personally liable for any portion of the costs order; the costs remain the responsibility of the City.
- Judges
- R Sutherland
- Legal Topics
- Municipal Billing Disputes, Costs Orders, Personal Accountability of Officials, Failure to File Heads of Argument
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Peter Tanya Millu
Applicant
City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality
Respondent
City Power SOC Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Supplementary Judgment Following Principal Judgment and Cost Representations
Legal Issues
- 1 Should Mr Ngwana, the legal advisor, be held personally liable for a portion of the costs order?
- 2 Does the conduct of City officials warrant personal accountability in litigation arising from administrative failures?
- 3 Is the dysfunctionality in the City's administration relevant to the allocation of costs?
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that Mr Ngwana's role in the dispute was that of a subordinate functionary, acting as a conduit for City Power and lacking decision-making authority regarding the litigation strategy. His affidavit demonstrated bona fides and clarified that he did not unilaterally decide to forgo filing heads of argument. The court accepted his explanation and declined to hold him personally liable for any portion of the costs order. The judgment further highlighted the entrenched dysfunctionality within the City's administration, noting that such failures are systemic and not the fault of individual minions. The court encouraged future litigants to cite executive officers in their...
Court Disposition
Mr Ngwana is not held personally liable for any portion of the costs order; the costs remain the responsibility of the City.
Orders
- Mr Ngwana is absolved from personal liability for the costs order.
- The supplementary judgment is to be read as an appendix to the principal judgment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
44 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case no: 25039/20211
1. REPORTABLE: no
2. OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: yes
In the matter between:
PETER TANYA MILLU
Applicant
And
CITY OF JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN
First Respondent
MUNICIPALITY
CITY POWER SOC LTD
Second Respondent
SUPPLEMENTARY JUDGMENT
This judgment has been delivered by electronic transmission on the online database of the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa, Johannesburg, on 22 April 2024 at 10h00 and by email transmission to the attorneys of record.
Per Sutherland DJP:
[1] This is a supplemental judgment to that which I handed down on 19 March 2024, [2024] ZAGJHC 291 (GJ). It should read as an appendix to that judgment.
[2] The supplementary judgment became necessary because of the orders made in that judgment as follows:
‘Mr Ngwana, the legal advisor must make representations within 10 days of the service of this order in which he offers reasons why he should not personally be ordered to pay 10% of the costs incurred; a failure to timeously deliver such representations shall result in a supplementary order being made to that effect.
This judgment must be brought to the attention of the Mayor, the City Manager, the Head of revenue collection in the City and to the chief legal advisor.’
[3] Mr Ngwana has filed an affidavit, as ordered. In it he addresses why, in his view, he should not personally share with the City, the obligation to pay the costs order.
[4] In this affidavit the deponent explains his personal role as a mere conduit for City Power, the entity which is responsible for the operational aspects of supplying electricity and computing what is owed by the householder for that service.
[5] He further explains that in regard to the nub of this case, i.e. the failure to file heads of argument, he was induced to believe that this obligation could be excused by addressing the dispute over accurate billing by operational means carried out by City Power. By such means, so was the intention, the dispute would be settled. The decision to take this step might have originated from Mr Baloyi the instructing attorney, but the statement on this score is not wholly clear. The flaw in this reasoning is that such a decision cannot be taken unilaterally.
[6] I am satisfied thar Mr Ngwana’s role is indeed that of a mere minion in the organisational arrangement of the City for dealing with this category of dispute. Accordingly, I am satisfied that he ought not to share in the burden of paying the costs order. I accept his declaration of bona fides. I have already addressed the role of the legal practitioners and say no more on that aspect.
[6] I bears mention that the intrinsic dysfunctionality in the administration of the City, as regards this category of dispute, upon which I have commented adversely in the principal judgment, is vividly corroborated by these revelations.
[7] The experience of the householder as described in this matter is no aberration. In the principal judgment I alluded to the observation of Strydom J on a similar debacle in which it seems the same legal team from the City were implicated. As fate would have it, Chetty J handed down, on 5 April 2024, an extensive and comprehensive judgment dealing with the same genus of dysfunctionality in the billing by the City. (Ackerman v City of Johannesburg and others [2024] ZAGJHC 334 (GJ) ) The pattern of administrative failure that ends up in litigation at the expense of the ratepayers is a disgrace.
[8] The crisis of accountability – or rather, the lack thereof – in public institutions must be arrested. The suggestion that the executive officers of the City be cited in their personal capacities seems an appropriate practice to be adopted by litigation attorneys and I encourage that to be done. Accountability from those who are culpable must be exacted.
Roland Sutherland
Deputy Judge President,
Gauteng Division, Johannesburg.
Heard:
4 March 2024
Judgment:
18 March 2024.
Supplementary Judgment: 29 April 2024
Appearances:
For the Applicant:
Adv J Peter SC
Instructed by Kaveer Guiness Incorporated.
For the First and Second Respondents:
Adv E Sithole
Instructed by Madhlopa and Thenga Incorporated.