White v City of Cape Town (918/10) [2011] ZASCA 212 (29 November 2011)

White v City of Cape Town (918/10) [2011] ZASCA 212 (29 November 2011)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appeal was moot because the tariff policy challenged by the appellant was only operative until 30 June 2010, and any order made would have no practical effect or result. The appellant restricted his relief to the 2009/2010 financial year, and the City had already indicated that the policy would be reviewed annually. The court reaffirmed the principle that it does not decide academic or abstract questions and that its function is to resolve live controversies. The appellant was forewarned about the mootness of the appeal but persisted nonetheless. The court found no reason to interfere with the costs order made by the high court and held that costs...

Citation
[2011] ZASCA 212
Parties
Appellant: Desmond White; Respondent: City of Cape Town
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 November 2011
Case Number
918/10
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape High Court
Outcome
Appeal struck off the roll with costs.
Judges
Ponnan, Snyders, Leach, Majiedt, Petse
Legal Topics
Municipal Tariffs, Unfair Discrimination, Declaratory Relief, Mootness, Costs Award
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Municipal Tariffs Unfair Discrimination Declaratory Relief Mootness Costs Award

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Desmond White

Appellant

City of Cape Town

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal and any order made thereon would have any practical effect or result within the meaning of section 21A of the Supreme Court Act.
  2. 2 Whether the City's 2009/2010 water tariff policy unlawfully discriminated against flat dwellers in contravention of section 74 of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant should be liable for costs given the nature of the litigation.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appeal was moot because the tariff policy challenged by the appellant was only operative until 30 June 2010, and any order made would have no practical effect or result. The appellant restricted his relief to the 2009/2010 financial year, and the City had already indicated that the policy would be reviewed annually. The court reaffirmed the principle that it does not decide academic or abstract questions and that its function is to resolve live controversies. The appellant was forewarned about the mootness of the appeal but persisted nonetheless. The court found no reason to interfere with the costs order made by the high court and held that costs...

Court Disposition

Appeal struck off the roll with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is struck off the roll with costs.