Tsebo Solutions Group (Pty) Ltd v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited and Others (121533/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1348 (15 December 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 1348 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Tsebo Solutions Group (Pty) Ltd v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited and Others (121533/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1348 (15 December 2025) Tsebo Solutions Group (Pty) Ltd v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited and Others (121533/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1348 (15 December 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_1348.html sino date 15 December 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 121533/2024 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED: YES Date: 15 December 2025 In the matter between: TSEBO SOLUTIONS GROUP (PTY) LTD                   APLLICANT and ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED                            1 st RESPONDENT CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER                             2 nd RESPONDENT ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED MURAFHO CONSULTING (PTY) LIMITED                 3 rd RESPONDENT JUDGMENT ALLY AJ [1]      This is an opposed application for costs that were reserved after the matter was removed from the roll by Tolmay J on 25 February 2025 arising from an urgent application launched by the Applicant. [2]      The Applicant was represented by Adv. T. Mabuda and the First and Second Respondents by Adv. B. Mkhize. [3]      Whilst this matter has come before this Court on the question of who is to pay the costs of the removed application before Tolmay J, in my view, this Court is required to assess whether at the time of launching the application: 3.1     the application was urgent; 3.2     the first and second respondents were in contempt of the Order [1] by Neukircher J. [4]      In my view, it is only after answering the above issues, can this Court come to a decision as to costs of the urgent application and the present application. [5]      The applicant contends that the first and second respondents were in contempt of the order by Neukircher J and were thus justified in launching the urgent application when they did. [6]      As I understand the case of the applicant, the first and second respondents were in contempt for the reason that there was non-compliance with all of the Orders of Neukircher J. Consequently, the applicant, in their view, was thus entitled to launch an urgent application as it is trite that non-compliance with court orders is an urgent matter. [7]      It must be stated that it is true that non-compliance with court orders is urgent and for present purposes it can be accepted, in my view, that non-compliance with a court order is urgent. [8]      However, urgency of the matter only answers one of the questions. The first and second respondents raise the issue that at the hearing by Tolmay J, the matter was removed because the file was not in order and accordingly, on that basis alone, the first and second respondents are entitled to the wasted costs before Tolmay J. [9]      Should this Court then go further and determine whether first and second respondents were in contempt of Neukircher J’s Order? Ordinarily, the answer to this question would be in the negative because if the matter was removed because the papers before court were not in order, then cadit quaestio , and the matter ends there and, in my view, the first and second respondents would be entitled to their costs. [10]    However, in the particular circumstances of this case, I am of the view that this Court should also determine whether, the first and second respondents were indeed in contempt of court at the time the matter served before Tolmay J. [11]    In determining whether the respondent was in contempt, one must, in my view, set out the requirements for contempt of court. [12]    The locus classicus for the requirements and principles of contempt of court have been set out by the Supreme Court of Appeal [2] and the Constitutional Court [3] to which I align myself. [13]    It is common cause that Neukircher J’s Court Order existed and that the Order had come to the attention of the respondent. [14]    The issue, however, in this case is whether the applicant on the papers before Court, can show that the first and second respondents were mala fide and/or wilful in not complying with the said Court Order in toto at the time of launching the application. [15]    In my view, this is where the applicant falls short and this Court agrees with the first and second respondents that the applicant has failed to prove its case in respect of contempt of court. [16]    It must, however, also be stated that the applicant, in not pursuing the matter before Tolmay J, should have offered to pay the wasted costs of the first and second respondent. [17]    Furthermore, the launch of this application before this court can only be said to have been unwise for the reason that they should have known that they did not have a case. [18]    Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the applicant must not only pay the costs of the respondent during the abortive hearing before Tolmay J but must also pay the costs of the first and second respondents in this court. As a result, the following Order shall issue: a).      the applicant is to pay the party and party wasted costs of the first and second respondent before Tolmay J and the fees of counsel to be paid on Scale B; b).      the applicant is to pay the party and party costs of the first and second respondent before this Court and the fees of counsel to be paid on Scale B. ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT, PRETORIA Electronically submitted therefore unsigned Delivered:  This judgement was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to the Parties/their legal representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on CaseLines.  The date for hand-down is deemed to be 15 December 2025. Date of hearing: 1 September 2025 Date of judgment: 15 December 2025 Appearances: Attorneys for the Applicant: CLIFFE DEKKER HOFMEYER INC tim.smit@cdhlegal.ccom loyiso.bavuma@ccdhlegal.com Counsel for the Applicant: Adv. T V Mabuda Attorneys for the 1 st Respondent: MADIBA MOTSAI MASITENYANE & GATHIRIATTORNEYS INC tumi@mmmgattorneys.co.za Counsel for the 1 st Respondent: Adv B Mkhize [1] CaseLines: Section 06-28 – 06-30 [2] Fakie N.O. v CCII Systems (Pty) Limited [2006] ZASCA 52 ; 2006 (4) SA 326 SCA @ para 6; [3] Pheko and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality [No. 2] 2015 (5) SA  600 CC sino noindex make_database footer start