Ngqushwa Municipality and Others v Economic Freedom Fighters and Others (446/2018) [2020] ZAECBHC 15 (17 June 2020)

Ngqushwa Municipality and Others v Economic Freedom Fighters and Others (446/2018) [2020] ZAECBHC 15 (17 June 2020)

The court found that although the applicants' explanation for the delay in filing their answering affidavits was perfunctory and lacked detail, the interests of justice required that the defence on the merits be ventilated, given its arguable nature and importance to the Municipality. The prejudice to the respondents was primarily limited to wasted costs, which could be compensated by an appropriate costs order. The late delivery of the Rule 7 notice was not properly motivated and was abandoned, but the court agreed with the respondents that its filing appeared vexatious. Ultimately, the court exercised its discretion to condone the late filing of the answering affidavits, directed the...

Citation
[2020] ZAECBHC 15
Parties
Applicant: Ngqushwa Municipality; Applicant: Mayor of Ngqushwa Municipal Council; Applicant: Speaker of Ngqushwa Municipal Council; Respondent: Economic Freedom Fighters; Respondent: Siphosenkozi Gwavu; Respondent: Mlodolozi Mankeya; Respondent: MEC for Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 June 2020
Case Number
446/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Interlocutory Application for Condonation of Late Filing of Answering Affidavits and Rule 7 Notice
Outcome
Application for condonation granted for late filing of answering affidavits; costs awarded against applicants for interlocutory application and wasted costs.
Judges
B Hartle
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing of Affidavits, Municipal Structures Act, Rule 7 Authority Challenge, Rule 6 5 D Iii, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Condonation Late Filing of Affidavits Municipal Structures Act Rule 7 Authority Challenge Rule 6 5 D Iii Costs Orders

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ngqushwa Municipality

Applicant

Mayor of Ngqushwa Municipal Council

Applicant

Speaker of Ngqushwa Municipal Council

Applicant

Economic Freedom Fighters

Respondent

Siphosenkozi Gwavu

Respondent

Mlodolozi Mankeya

Respondent

MEC for Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Interlocutory Application for Condonation of Late Filing of Answering Affidavits and Rule 7 Notice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the late filing of the applicants' answering affidavits in the main application should be condoned.
  2. 2 Whether the late delivery of the Rule 7 notice challenging authority should be condoned.
  3. 3 What prejudice, if any, has been caused to the respondents by the delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the applicants' explanation for the delay in filing their answering affidavits was perfunctory and lacked detail, the interests of justice required that the defence on the merits be ventilated, given its arguable nature and importance to the Municipality. The prejudice to the respondents was primarily limited to wasted costs, which could be compensated by an appropriate costs order. The late delivery of the Rule 7 notice was not properly motivated and was abandoned, but the court agreed with the respondents that its filing appeared vexatious. Ultimately, the court exercised its discretion to condone the late filing of the answering affidavits, directed the...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation granted for late filing of answering affidavits; costs awarded against applicants for interlocutory application and wasted costs.

Orders

  • The late filing of the first to third respondents’ answering affidavits in the main application is condoned.
  • The applicants are directed to file their replying affidavit, if any, to the respondents’ answering affidavits, within ten (10) days of this order.