Uniqon Wonings (Pty) Limited v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (22726/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 471 (10 July 2014)

Uniqon Wonings (Pty) Limited v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (22726/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 471 (10 July 2014)

The court found that the applicant demonstrated urgency due to the need to transfer erven to purchasers and the damages suffered from the respondent's refusal to issue clearance certificates. The respondent failed to oppose the Rule 49(11) application, and the court was satisfied that the applicant made out a good case for immediate execution of the judgment. The court ordered that the previous judgment be executed forthwith and that the respondent pay the costs of the application, including the costs of two counsel.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 471
Parties
Applicant: Uniqon Wonings (Pty) Limited; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 July 2014
Case Number
22726/2013
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Rule 49(11) Application Following Judgment and Pending Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application granted with costs.
Judges
P.Z. Ebersohn
Legal Topics
Rule 49 11 Execution Pending Appeal, Clearance Certificates, Condonation of Late Appeal, Semi Urgent Application
Civil Procedure Rule 49 11 Execution Pending Appeal Clearance Certificates Condonation of Late Appeal Semi Urgent 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Uniqon Wonings (Pty) Limited

Applicant

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Rule 49(11) Application Following Judgment and Pending Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to immediate execution of the judgment under Rule 49(11) pending the respondent's application for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the urgency of the matter justifies dispensing with the usual rules regarding time periods and service.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's failure to oppose the Rule 49(11) application affects the outcome.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant demonstrated urgency due to the need to transfer erven to purchasers and the damages suffered from the respondent's refusal to issue clearance certificates. The respondent failed to oppose the Rule 49(11) application, and the court was satisfied that the applicant made out a good case for immediate execution of the judgment. The court ordered that the previous judgment be executed forthwith and that the respondent pay the costs of the application, including the costs of two counsel.

Court Disposition

Application granted with costs.

Orders

  • The application is heard on a semi-urgent basis and the rules regarding time periods and service are dispensed with.
  • The order of this court dated 12 March 2014 under case number 22726/2013 is to be executed and complied with immediately.