Lateovitsa (Pty) Ltd and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Another (2023-007015) [2023] ZAGPJHC 163 (27 February 2023)

Lateovitsa (Pty) Ltd and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Another (2023-007015) [2023] ZAGPJHC 163 (27 February 2023)

The applicants, as sub-tenants, do not possess a right to electricity supply that is incidental to possession and cannot rely on spoliation against the City. The contract for supply is between the City and the landlord, not the applicants. The City lawfully terminated supply due to non-payment and subsequently due to an illegal connection, as permitted by its by-laws. The applicants failed to establish procedural unfairness or irrationality under PAJA, as both non-payment and illegal connection are valid grounds for termination. The facts differ from Joseph v City of Johannesburg, as the present case involves an illegal connection, precluding administrative law remedies. The applicants...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 163
Parties
Applicant: Lateovitsa (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Transcom Services (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Minx Shipping (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Tlotlego Property Group (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 February 2023
Case Number
2023-007015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Manoim
Legal Topics
Spoliation, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Municipal Services Disconnection, Illegal Electricity Connection, Tenant Rights, Costs Award
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Land and Property Spoliation Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Municipal Services Disconnection Illegal Electricity Connection Tenant Rights +1 more

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lateovitsa (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Transcom Services (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Minx Shipping (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Tlotlego Property Group (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to restoration of electricity supply on the basis of spoliation.
  2. 2 Whether the City’s termination of electricity supply is reviewable under PAJA.
  3. 3 Whether tenants of a non-paying landlord can invoke administrative law remedies similar to those in Joseph v City of Johannesburg.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants, as sub-tenants, do not possess a right to electricity supply that is incidental to possession and cannot rely on spoliation against the City. The contract for supply is between the City and the landlord, not the applicants. The City lawfully terminated supply due to non-payment and subsequently due to an illegal connection, as permitted by its by-laws. The applicants failed to establish procedural unfairness or irrationality under PAJA, as both non-payment and illegal connection are valid grounds for termination. The facts differ from Joseph v City of Johannesburg, as the present case involves an illegal connection, precluding administrative law remedies. The applicants...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicants, jointly and severally, the one paying the others to be absolved, are liable for the first respondent’s costs including the costs consequent on the employment of two counsel.