Case Law[2025] ZAGPJHC 582South Africa
City of Johannesburg v Changing Tides 74 (Pty) Ltd (40135/2016) [2025] ZAGPJHC 582 (5 June 2025)
Judgment
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: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2025
>>
[2025] ZAGPJHC 582
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
sino index
## City of Johannesburg v Changing Tides 74 (Pty) Ltd (40135/2016) [2025] ZAGPJHC 582 (5 June 2025)
City of Johannesburg v Changing Tides 74 (Pty) Ltd (40135/2016) [2025] ZAGPJHC 582 (5 June 2025)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_582.html
sino date 5 June 2025
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case
Number: 40135/2016
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED: NO
05
June 2025
In
the matter between:
THE
CITY OF JOHANNESBURG
Applicant
And
CHANGING
TIDES 74 (PTY) LTD
Respondent
In
re:
CHANGING
TIDES 74 (PTY) LTD
Plaintiff
And
THE CITY OF
JOHANNESBURG
Defendant
JUDGMENT
ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
Mahosi,
J
[1]
This is an application brought by the City of Johannesburg (“the
City”) for leave to appeal against the whole
of this Court’s
judgment and order handed down on 14 March 2025 to the Supreme Court
of Appeal (SCA), alternatively, a Full
Bench of this Court.
[2]
The application is premised on the basis that the issues before this
Court raises complex questions of law, and this Court
erred in its
approach to wrongfulness as an element of delictual liability and
consequently conflated the test for wrongfulness
and fault. The City
also contended that the judgment sets a precedent for future
delictual claims against local authorities who
failed to provide
emergency accommodation to evictees. According to the City, this is a
matter of public interest that is likely
to affect landowners and
local authorities across the country. The City further submitted that
as the judgment raises essential
questions of constitutional rights
and obligations, leave to appeal should be granted to the SCA.
[3]
Another ancillary ground of appeal concerns the order this Court made
that the City must pay
mora
interest on the amount of
R12,374,993.00 from the date of summons to the date of final payment
when, in terms of the agreement
which had been reached between the
parties respective expert witnesses,
mora
interest from date
of summons to August 2024 was already included in the amount of
damages calculated by them in respect of the
two competing scenarios
applicable in respect of the deprivation period. Changing Tides does
not oppose this relief as it was a
patent error. This Court agrees
with the parties that the
mora
interest ought to run from the
date of judgment to the date of final payment.
[4]
Changing Tides asserted that there are no reasonable prospects that
another Court would come to a different conclusion
to that reached by
this Court and contended that the City advanced no compelling reasons
why leave to appeal should be granted
in terms of section
17(1)(a)(ii) of the Act.
[5]
The test for leave to appeal is, by now, trite and bears no
repetition. Having had regard to both parties’ submissions
and
arguments, this Court is persuaded that its judgment raises important
questions of constitutional rights and obligations and
is likely to
impact local authorities and many landowners. It is, therefore,
appropriate that leave to appeal be granted to the
SCA.
[6]
Accordingly, the following order is made:
1. Leave to appeal is granted to
the Supreme Court of Appeal.
2. Paragraph 40.1 of this
Court’s judgment is hereby amended to read:
“
The defendant must pay the
plaintiff damages in the amount of R12,374,993.00 together with
mora
interest
of 11.75% per annum (the current mora rate) on this
amount from the date of judgment to the date of final payment.”
3. Costs to be costs in the
cause.
D.
Mahosi J
Acting
Judge of the High Court
Date of hearing: 05 June 2025
Delivered:
This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties' representatives through email and uploaded
on Caseline. The
date for hand-down is deemed to be 05 June 2025.
Appearances
For
the applicant:
Advocates A.W. Pullinger and L Mokwena
Instructed
by:
Kunene Ramapala Incorporated
Attorneys
For
the respondent: Advocates CHJ
Badenhorst SC and P Bosman
Instructed
by:
Esthé Muller
Incorporated Attorneys
c/o Couzyns Incorporated Attorneys
sino noindex
make_database footer start
Similar Cases
City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Community Protection Solutions NPC (2023/003435) [2025] ZAGPJHC 283 (17 March 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 283High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)100% similar
City of Ekurhuleni v Sako and Others (2022/047372) [2025] ZAGPJHC 798 (8 August 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 798High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)100% similar
City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Manyetsa (5796/2022) [2025] ZAGPJHC 533 (23 May 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 533High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)100% similar
City of Ekhuruleni Metropolitan Municipality v Botes (Leave to Appeal) (2011/32313) [2025] ZAGPJHC 460 (9 May 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 460High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)100% similar
City of Johannesburg v Unknown Individuals and Others (2024/106527) [2025] ZAGPJHC 781 (14 August 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 781High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)100% similar