Newcastle Minicipality and Another v Eskom Soc Ltd and Another (4102/2019P) [2020] ZAKZPHC 4 (30 January 2020)

Newcastle Minicipality and Another v Eskom Soc Ltd and Another (4102/2019P) [2020] ZAKZPHC 4 (30 January 2020)

Eskom failed to comply with the procedural requirements of PAJA and its regulations in publishing notices regarding the intended disconnection of electricity supply. The notice period was insufficient, required contact details were omitted, and publication in local newspapers was inadequate for meaningful public participation. Eskom's conduct justified the intervention of Lanxess, whose business and employees would have been severely affected. The wasted costs of the adjournment on 6 December 2019 were caused by Eskom's late filing of its supplementary affidavit without proper condonation. While Cogta's involvement was justified, the general rule against costs between state organs...

Citation
[2020] ZAKZPHC 4
Parties
Applicant: Newcastle Municipality; Applicant: MEC (KwaZulu-Natal) for the Department of Co-Operative Governance and Traditional Affairs (Cogta); Respondent: Eskom Soc Ltd; Respondent: Lanxess Cisca (Pty) Ltd
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 January 2020
Case Number
4102/2019P
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Settlement of Merits
Outcome
Eskom is ordered to pay Lanxess's costs of intervention, wasted costs of the adjournment on 6 December 2019, and costs of 11 December 2019, including costs of two counsel where employed. No further order as to costs is made between Cogta and Eskom.
Judges
Bezuidenhout AJ
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Costs Award, Municipal Indebtedness, Interdict, Intervention Application
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Costs Award Municipal Indebtedness Interdict Intervention Application

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Newcastle Municipality

Applicant

MEC (KwaZulu-Natal) for the Department of Co-Operative Governance and Traditional Affairs (Cogta)

Applicant

Eskom Soc Ltd

Respondent

Lanxess Cisca (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Settlement of Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Eskom complied with the procedural requirements of PAJA and its regulations before disconnecting electricity supply to the municipality.
  2. 2 Whether Eskom should be liable for the costs of Cogta and Lanxess following settlement of the merits.
  3. 3 Whether the intervention and participation of Lanxess was justified and whether Eskom should pay its costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Eskom failed to comply with the procedural requirements of PAJA and its regulations in publishing notices regarding the intended disconnection of electricity supply. The notice period was insufficient, required contact details were omitted, and publication in local newspapers was inadequate for meaningful public participation. Eskom's conduct justified the intervention of Lanxess, whose business and employees would have been severely affected. The wasted costs of the adjournment on 6 December 2019 were caused by Eskom's late filing of its supplementary affidavit without proper condonation. While Cogta's involvement was justified, the general rule against costs between state organs...

Court Disposition

Eskom is ordered to pay Lanxess's costs of intervention, wasted costs of the adjournment on 6 December 2019, and costs of 11 December 2019, including costs of two counsel where employed. No further order as to costs is made between Cogta and Eskom.

Orders

  • The first respondent (Eskom) is directed to pay the second respondent’s (Lanxess) costs of its intervention in the application, wasted costs in respect of the adjournment of the matter on 6 December 2019, and costs of 11 December 2019, such costs to include the costs of two counsel, where so employed.
  • No further order as to costs is made.