Zungu and Another v Mtubatuba Local Municipality and Others (6959/2020P) [2021] ZAKZPHC 58 (27 August 2021)

Zungu and Another v Mtubatuba Local Municipality and Others (6959/2020P) [2021] ZAKZPHC 58 (27 August 2021)

The court found that the applicants were not to blame for the delay in hearing Part B of the application, as they had no control over the scheduling and withdrew promptly once the matter became moot. The first respondent failed to demonstrate that the applicants were lawfully removed from office, and the minutes of the meeting supported the applicants' version. The litigation was justified by the municipality's failure to conduct its affairs lawfully, and the first respondent's approach to the costs application unnecessarily escalated costs. In light of these circumstances, the court exercised its discretion to deprive the first respondent of costs and ordered the first respondent to pay...

Citation
[2021] ZAKZPHC 58
Parties
Applicant: Mandlakayise Zungu; Applicant: Nkosinathi Mlambu; Respondent: Mtubatuba Local Municipality; Respondent: The Municipal Council of Mtubatuba Municipality; Respondent: Thobelani Ngcamphalala; Respondent: Mbongeleni Gina; Respondent: D R Ntuli; Respondent: The Executive Committee of Mtubatuba Local Municipality; Respondent: Municipal Manager: S R Ntuli; Respondent: The Members of the Executive Committee for Corporate Governance and Traditional Affairs in Kwazulu-Natal; Respondent: Kwazulu-Natal Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs; Respondent: Mr Madondo; Respondent: The African National Congress; Respondent: The Democratic Alliance; Respondent: The Economic Freedom Fighters; Respondent: The African Independent Congress; Respondent: The Inkatha Freedom Party; Respondent: Mavis Davis
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 August 2021
Case Number
6959/2020P
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Costs Determination Following Withdrawal of Application
Outcome
Application dismissed. First respondent ordered to pay costs.
Judges
Mngadi
Legal Topics
Withdrawal of Proceedings, Costs Award, Municipal Governance, Urgent Application, Mootness
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Withdrawal of Proceedings Costs Award Municipal Governance Urgent Application Mootness

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mandlakayise Zungu

Applicant

Nkosinathi Mlambu

Applicant

Mtubatuba Local Municipality

Respondent

The Municipal Council of Mtubatuba Municipality

Respondent

Thobelani Ngcamphalala

Respondent

Mbongeleni Gina

Respondent

D R Ntuli

Respondent

The Executive Committee of Mtubatuba Local Municipality

Respondent

Municipal Manager: S R Ntuli

Respondent

The Members of the Executive Committee for Corporate Governance and Traditional Affairs in Kwazulu-Natal

Respondent

Kwazulu-Natal Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs

Respondent

Mr Madondo

Respondent

The African National Congress

Respondent

The Democratic Alliance

Respondent

The Economic Freedom Fighters

Respondent

The African Independent Congress

Respondent

The Inkatha Freedom Party

Respondent

Mavis Davis

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Costs Determination Following Withdrawal of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants should be held liable for costs incurred after withdrawal of Part B of the application.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent's conduct in the council meeting justified the litigation and affected the costs outcome.
  3. 3 Whether the withdrawal of the application due to mootness deprives the first respondent of entitlement to costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants were not to blame for the delay in hearing Part B of the application, as they had no control over the scheduling and withdrew promptly once the matter became moot. The first respondent failed to demonstrate that the applicants were lawfully removed from office, and the minutes of the meeting supported the applicants' version. The litigation was justified by the municipality's failure to conduct its affairs lawfully, and the first respondent's approach to the costs application unnecessarily escalated costs. In light of these circumstances, the court exercised its discretion to deprive the first respondent of costs and ordered the first respondent to pay...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. First respondent ordered to pay costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The first respondent is ordered to pay costs of the application.