Motaung and Others v MEC Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs and Others (4339/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 128 (13 April 2021)

Motaung and Others v MEC Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs and Others (4339/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 128 (13 April 2021)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish locus standi, as the authority to act was disputed and substantiated by affidavits from councillors who denied authorising the application. The applicants did not file replying affidavits to address these disputes, nor did they comply with directives to file heads of argument or seek condonation for their failure. The grounds of appeal were found to be general and unsupported by specifics. The court held that the Plascon Evans rule applied, as the applicants did not respond to disputed facts, and that there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, with each party ordered to...

Citation
[2021] ZAFSHC 128
Parties
Applicant: TA Motaung; Applicant: M Mkheloane; Applicant: PM Mahlabela; Applicant: L Fischer; Applicant: MN Mtshali; Applicant: NP Mokoena; Applicant: L Tsotetsi; Applicant: LL Nhlapo; Applicant: S Motjeane; Applicant: Leotlela; Applicant: TJ Taats; Applicant: ME Maseko; Applicant: FD Mosokwene; Applicant: T Mofokeng; Applicant: MS Poho; Applicant: Mare Alexis; Applicant: Nnune Baby; Applicant: Lebohang Makhefu; Applicant: Morena Molawa; Applicant: Kobo Sky; Applicant: M Mokoena; Applicant: Dywili M; Applicant: Ntesoa Rani; Applicant: Telane Mathithi; Applicant: SL Tshongwe; Applicant: KB Mofokeng; Applicant: MJ Malindi; Applicant: R Meyer; Applicant: Sello Jonas Mokoena; Applicant: MJ Ndaba; Applicant: MJ Mkhefa; Applicant: MB Oanyane; Applicant: CC Sheepers; Respondent: MEC: Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs FS; Respondent: Mathe Motsumi; Respondent: Keneilwe Lepesa; Respondent: Metsimaholo Local Municipality
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 April 2021
Case Number
4339/2020
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Urgent Interdict and Declaratory Relief.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
P.E. Molitsoane
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Rule 7 Authority to Act, Urgent Interdict, Declaratory Relief, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Locus Standi Rule 7 Authority to Act Urgent Interdict Declaratory Relief Costs Award

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TA Motaung

Applicant

M Mkheloane

Applicant

PM Mahlabela

Applicant

L Fischer

Applicant

MN Mtshali

Applicant

NP Mokoena

Applicant

L Tsotetsi

Applicant

LL Nhlapo

Applicant

S Motjeane

Applicant

Leotlela

Applicant

TJ Taats

Applicant

ME Maseko

Applicant

FD Mosokwene

Applicant

T Mofokeng

Applicant

MS Poho

Applicant

Mare Alexis

Applicant

Nnune Baby

Applicant

Lebohang Makhefu

Applicant

Morena Molawa

Applicant

Kobo Sky

Applicant

M Mokoena

Applicant

Dywili M

Applicant

Ntesoa Rani

Applicant

Telane Mathithi

Applicant

SL Tshongwe

Applicant

KB Mofokeng

Applicant

MJ Malindi

Applicant

R Meyer

Applicant

Sello Jonas Mokoena

Applicant

MJ Ndaba

Applicant

MJ Mkhefa

Applicant

MB Oanyane

Applicant

CC Sheepers

Applicant

MEC: Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs FS

Respondent

Mathe Motsumi

Respondent

Keneilwe Lepesa

Respondent

Metsimaholo Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Urgent Interdict and Declaratory Relief.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants had proper locus standi to bring the application.
  2. 2 Whether the court erred by not invoking Rule 7 regarding authority to act.
  3. 3 Whether technicalities were improperly prioritized over substantive justice.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish locus standi, as the authority to act was disputed and substantiated by affidavits from councillors who denied authorising the application. The applicants did not file replying affidavits to address these disputes, nor did they comply with directives to file heads of argument or seek condonation for their failure. The grounds of appeal were found to be general and unsupported by specifics. The court held that the Plascon Evans rule applied, as the applicants did not respond to disputed facts, and that there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, with each party ordered to...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Each party to pay his/her/its costs.