Idola (Pty) Ltd and Another v City Of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2023-047352) [2023] ZAGPJHC 743 (29 June 2023)

Idola (Pty) Ltd and Another v City Of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2023-047352) [2023] ZAGPJHC 743 (29 June 2023)

The court found that the application under section 18(3) was unnecessary because the order of 25 May 2023 was interlocutory in nature, as explicitly stated in the previous judgment. Section 18(2) of the Superior Courts Act applies, meaning the operation and execution of the interlocutory order is not suspended pending appeal unless exceptional circumstances are shown, which were not present. The applicants withdrew the application during the hearing, and the court held that costs should be awarded against them due to the unnecessary nature of the proceedings.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 743
Parties
Respondent: Idola (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Twin City Realty (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality; Applicant: Municipal Manager of the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality; Applicant: Johannesburg Water (SOC); Applicant: City Power (SOC)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 June 2023
Case Number
2023-047352
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Section 18(3) Application for Costs Following Withdrawal
Outcome
Application withdrawn; costs awarded against applicants.
Judges
GC Wright
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Orders, Costs Award, Section 18 Superior Courts Act
Civil Procedure Interlocutory Orders Costs Award Section 18 Superior Courts Act

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Idola (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Twin City Realty (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Applicant

Municipal Manager of the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Applicant

Johannesburg Water (SOC)

Applicant

City Power (SOC)

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Section 18(3) Application for Costs Following Withdrawal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the section 18(3) application was necessary given the interlocutory nature of the original order.
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded against the applicants following withdrawal of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application under section 18(3) was unnecessary because the order of 25 May 2023 was interlocutory in nature, as explicitly stated in the previous judgment. Section 18(2) of the Superior Courts Act applies, meaning the operation and execution of the interlocutory order is not suspended pending appeal unless exceptional circumstances are shown, which were not present. The applicants withdrew the application during the hearing, and the court held that costs should be awarded against them due to the unnecessary nature of the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application withdrawn; costs awarded against applicants.

Orders

  • The applicants are jointly and severally liable for the respondents’ costs of the application.