Moola and Others v KwaDukuza Municipality and Another (2194/2017) [2017] ZAKZDHC 18 (21 April 2017)

Moola and Others v KwaDukuza Municipality and Another (2194/2017) [2017] ZAKZDHC 18 (21 April 2017)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish the requirements for a final interdict. Their case, as set out in the founding affidavit, was inconsistent and shifted during proceedings from challenging the tender process and alleging an unsolicited bid to attacking the terms of the sale agreement. The municipality had conducted an open tender process, and the applicants did not challenge the legitimacy of the process or the award to the second respondent. The sale was adopted by council resolution in October 2015, and any review should have been brought within 180 days; no condonation was sought. The applicants did not make out a clear right or show irreparable harm, and the...

Citation
[2017] ZAKZDHC 18
Parties
Applicant: Cassim Mohammed Moola; Applicant: The Concerned Citizens Group; Applicant: Devadas Paul David; Respondent: KwaDukuza Municipality; Respondent: Double Ring Trading 7 (Pty) Ltd
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 April 2017
Case Number
2194/2017
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Urgent Application for Interdict
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel, to be paid by the applicants jointly and severally.
Judges
M R Chetty
Legal Topics
Municipal Property Disposal, Interim and Final Interdicts, Locus Standi, Review of Administrative Action, Promotion of Access to Information Act, Costs in Constitutional Litigation
Administrative Law Land and Property Civil Procedure Municipal Property Disposal Interim and Final Interdicts Locus Standi Review of Administrative Action Promotion of Access to Information Act +1 more

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 7 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cassim Mohammed Moola

Applicant

The Concerned Citizens Group

Applicant

Devadas Paul David

Applicant

KwaDukuza Municipality

Respondent

Double Ring Trading 7 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Urgent Application for Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have locus standi to challenge the municipality's disposal of public property.
  2. 2 Whether the sale of municipal property to the second respondent was lawful and complied with statutory and policy requirements.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants established the requirements for a final interdict.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish the requirements for a final interdict. Their case, as set out in the founding affidavit, was inconsistent and shifted during proceedings from challenging the tender process and alleging an unsolicited bid to attacking the terms of the sale agreement. The municipality had conducted an open tender process, and the applicants did not challenge the legitimacy of the process or the award to the second respondent. The sale was adopted by council resolution in October 2015, and any review should have been brought within 180 days; no condonation was sought. The applicants did not make out a clear right or show irreparable harm, and the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel, to be paid by the applicants jointly and severally.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel, to be paid by the applicants jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.