PTPC (Pty) Limited v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Another (117036/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 308 (28 March 2025)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate urgency in bringing the application to execute the spoliation order. The applicant delayed for three months after the original order was granted and did not provide a satisfactory explanation for this delay. The court accepted the respondents' argument that no...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPPHC 308
- Parties
- Applicant: PTPC (Pty) Limited; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: City Manager of City of Tshwane Municipality
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 117036/2024
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Application to Execute Spoliation Order Pending Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against the applicant.
- Judges
- Nyathi
- Legal Topics
- Spoliation Order, Section 18 Application, Urgency, Execution Pending Appeal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
PTPC (Pty) Limited
Applicant
City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Respondent
City Manager of City of Tshwane Municipality
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Execute Spoliation Order Pending Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application to execute the spoliation order pending leave to appeal is urgent.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to execution of the spoliation order under section 18 of the Superior Courts Act.
- 3 Whether the applicant provided sufficient explanation for delay in bringing the urgent application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate urgency in bringing the application to execute the spoliation order. The applicant delayed for three months after the original order was granted and did not provide a satisfactory explanation for this delay. The court accepted the respondents' argument that no signage had been removed and that the applicant had already obtained an undertaking by agreement, made an order of court, regarding the same subject matter. The court held that the applicant's reliance on correspondence from the respondents' attorneys did not constitute a rational basis for urgency. Consequently, the application was struck from the roll for lack of urgency,...
Court Disposition
Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against the applicant.
Orders
- The application is struck from the roll for lack of urgency.
- The applicant is ordered to pay the respondents' costs, including the costs of 17 February 2025 at scale B.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
48 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 117036/2024
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO
(4) Date: 28 March 2025
Signature:
In the matter between:
PTPC (PTY) LIMITED
Applicant
And
CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY
First Respondent
CITY MANAGER OF CITY OF TSHWANE MUNICIPALITY Second Respondent
JUDGMENT
NYATHI J
A. INTRODUCTION
[1] The applicant is before the urgent court seeking an order executing a spoliation order it had obtained in this court earlier in terms of section 18 (1) and (3) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013[1] pending an application for leave to appeal lodged by the respondents.
[2] The applicant is a participant in the outdoor advertising board industry. It has been in litigation against the respondents who are a municipality charged with regulating among other activities, the billboards within its area of jurisdiction. One such court
application resulted in the applicant being granted a spoliation order by this court[2] against the respondents.
[3] The applicant therefore seek an order preserving the status quo until the outcome of the application for leave to appeal and possibly, the appeal itself.
[4] Mr. Viljoen submitted on behalf of the applicant that it was galvanized into launching this instant application by correspondence it received from the attorneys acting on behalf of the respondents as quoted below.
[5] The relevant correspondence is a letter from the applicant’s attorneys dated 13 February 2025 (“RR 7”) seeking assurances that the respondents would not remove signage belonging to the applicant. The respondents’ attorneys responded in reaction to the threatened legal action by the applicants’ attorneys, by stating in paragraph 5 of its letter of reply dated 13 February 2025 (“RR 8”) that:
“5. We look forward to receiving your client’s application timeously.”
[6] The respondents oppose the application based on both lack of urgency and on its merits.
[7] Mr. Mbeki on behalf of the respondents, contends that this application is not urgent. He stated that:
7.1 The order by Basson J was granted on 14 November 2024 and only lost its efficacy when the respondents filed their application for leave to appeal on 25 November 2024.
7.2 The applicant herein comes 3 months down the line with no explanation whatsoever and seek execution of the order. When the applicant sought and obtained the order before his Lordship Holland-Mutter J on 28 November 2024, they should at that time, have sought this relief.
7.3 The applicant rushed to court in circumstances where the respondents have merely issued a notice only and have not removed any signage.
7.4 The respondents react to community complaints.
7.5 The applicant does not, at any rate, have permission to advertise.
7.6 The applicant will have a remedy in due course because their section 18 application is pending and will be heard together with the application for leave to appeal as their papers allege.
[8] In the totality of facts in this application, I am inclined to agree with the respondents’ submissions. The applicant has obtained in the previous week an undertaking by agreement between the parties,
which was made an order by Her Ladyship Mnqibisa-Thusi J relating to the same subject-matter as Basson J’s order.
[9] The fact of the applicant having been impelled to launch an urgent application on the basis of being “dared to file timeously” by the respondent is devoid of rationality.
[10] Accordingly, I make the following order:
(i) The application is struck from the roll for lack of urgency.
(ii) The applicant is ordered to pay the respondents’ costs including the costs of 17 February 2025 at scale B.[3]
J.S. NYATHI
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Pretoria
Date of hearing: 20/02/2025 Date of Judgment: 28 March 2025 On behalf of the Applicant: Adv. J.C. Viljoen Instructed by: Jaques Classen Inc. On behalf of the Defendants: Adv. S.D. Mbeki Instructed by: Majang Inc.
Delivery: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' legal representatives by email and uploaded on the CaseLines electronic platform. The date for hand-down is deemed to be 28 March 2025.
[1] Section 18(1) read with (3) provides that the court may on application, under exceptional circumstances order the operation and execution of
a decision which is subject of an application for leave to appeal or of an appeal on certain conditions.
[2] As per draft order dated 14 November 2024 and the written judgment dated 03 February 2025 by Her Ladyship Justice Basson J.
[3] Rule 69 of the Uniform Rules of Court.