Mr Chips Plus (Pty) Ltd t/a Boer and Bier Restuarant v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Another (224977/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1212 (24 November 2025)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPPHC 1212 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Mr Chips Plus (Pty) Ltd t/a Boer and Bier Restuarant v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Another (224977/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1212 (24 November 2025) Mr Chips Plus (Pty) Ltd t/a Boer and Bier Restuarant v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Another (224977/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1212 (24 November 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_1212.html sino date 24 November 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 224977 /2025 (1)        REPORTABLE: NO (2)        OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3)        REVISED. DATE       24/11/2025 LENYAI J In the matter of: MR CHIPS PLUS (PTY) LTD                                                                                 Applicant t/a BOER & BIER RESTUARANT And CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY                         First Respondent MAGESHREE NAIDOO N.O Second Respondent Delivered: This judgment is handed down electronically by circulation to the Parties/their legal representatives by email and by uploading to Caselines. The date and time of hand-down is deemed to be 14:00 on 24 November 2025. JUDGMENT LENYAI J 1. This is an application wherein the applicant seeks the following orders: 1.1 That the applicant’s non-compliance with the Uniform Rules of Court relating to the forms, service and time periods be condoned, and that the matter be heard as one of urgency in terms of Rule 6(12)(a); 1.2 That the First and Second respondents be directed and compelled to remove the prohibition notice issued on the 19 th November 2025 in terms of Regulation 4(2) of Regulation 638 of 22 June 2018, and to immediately allow the applicants to resume trading operations; 1.3 That the respondents be interdicted and prohibited from issuing any further unlawful prohibition notices against the applicant, pending lawful compliance procedures in terms of Regulation 638; 1.4 That the respondents be ordered to bear the costs of this application, jointly and severally, including the costs of counsel on an attorney and client scale. 2. The matter is opposed by the respondents, and the applicant raised a point in limine, that the respondents have not appointed a correspondent attorney practicing within the geographical area of the court as is required by the rules of court. 3. Taking into consideration that the applicant brought this matter on extreme urgency, after hours on a Friday night, the court invokes the power conferred upon it by the Constitution in Section 173. This section grants the Constitutional Court, Supreme Court of Appeals and the High Court inherent power to protect and regulate their own processes and to develop the common law. 4. I am of the view that each case must be adjudicated on its own merits and only in exceptional circumstances may the court deviate from the rules. The matter before me is such that the court can condone the noncompliance of the respondents with the rules as both parties are represented before court, and it is in the interest of justice to allow and condone the respondents’ noncompliance with the rules. 5. The respondents in their answering affidavit have raised a point in limine, that the applicant is not a registered company and have attached a report by the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) dated the 21 st November 2025. 6. The respondents submit that the effect of the CIPC report of 21 November 2025, is that there is no applicant before court. They further contend that the applicant attached a CIPC report dated 11 May 2023, which is outdated. 7. The applicant in its replying affidavit stated that this latest report speaks to the fact that the company is in the process of deregistration because they have not submitted tax returns. They also advised the court that the company is compliant with SARS and have also attached the report dated April 2025. 8. It is trite that the applicant must set out all the facts and attach the relevant documents supporting its case in the founding affidavit. The fact that the applicant was caught out by the respondents and had to explain in the replying affidavit is very telling. The latest CIPC report supersedes the one of 2023 attached by the applicant in its application and the point in limine is accepted by the court. Seeing that there is no applicant before court, the matter stands to be struck off the urgent roll. 9. Under the circumstances, I make the following order: 9.1 The application is truck off the roll. 9.2  The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the respondents on an attorney and client scale. MMD LENYAI J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA Appearances Counsel for Appellants                         : Adv S Pendani A Trust Account Advocate Counsel for Respondent.                      : Adv Mbeki Instructed by                                       : Leepile Attorneys Date of hearing                                      : 21 November 2025 Date of Judgement                                : 24 November 2025 sino noindex make_database footer start