Municipal Manager of the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others v Twin City Realty (Pty) Ltd and Another (2939/2017) [2024] ZAGPJHC 140 (19 February 2024)

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 >> 2024 >> [2024] ZAGPJHC 140 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Municipal Manager of the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others v Twin City Realty (Pty) Ltd and Another (2939/2017) [2024] ZAGPJHC 140 (19 February 2024) Municipal Manager of the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others v Twin City Realty (Pty) Ltd and Another (2939/2017) [2024] ZAGPJHC 140 (19 February 2024) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2024_140.html sino date 19 February 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO:2939/2017 1).REPORTABLE: NO 2. OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO 3. REVISED: YES 19 February 2024 In the matter between: THE MUNICIPAL MANAGER OF                               FIRST APPLICANT OF THE CITY OF JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY ROSINA MOHALE                                                      SECOND APPLICANT MALEBO SELOWA                                                    THIRD APPLICANT SIPHO SIBIYA                                                             FOURTH APPLICANT CITY OF JOHANNESBURG METROPOILTAN MUNICIPALITY                              FIFTH APPLICANT CITY OF POWER JOHANNESBURG (SOC) LTD      SIXTH APPLICANT JOHANNESBURG WATER (SOC) LTD                     SEVENTH APPLICANT And TWIN CITY REALTY (PTY) LTD                                 FIRST RESPONDENT IDOLA (PTY) LTD                                                       SECOND RESPONDENT JUDGEMENT ALLY AJ [1]  This is an application launched by the First and Second Respondents, hereinafter referred to as the Respondents, for a costs order in their favour following an order [1] granted by agreement on 18 April 2019. [2]  The costs in the abovementioned order were reserved, hence this application which is opposed by all the Applicants. [3]  It should be noted that the abovementioned order was granted after the Applicants launched a reconsideration application. [4]  Both sets of parties submit that costs should be granted in their favour because they were successful. However, it is clear from the Order of Mahalelo J itself that both parties were successful and the costs reserved were in fact the costs of the reconsideration application. [5]  It has become trite law that a decision on costs to be awarded in legal proceedings vest in the discretion of the Court which discretion must be exercised judicially taking into account the circumstances of the case. [6]  It is true, as submitted by both Counsel that costs usually follow the result unless a Court is convinced otherwise in the given circumstances. [7]  The Respondents submit that this Court should consider that the original application was launched because of the conduct of the Applicants and the Respondents were successful in the said application [2] . However, it should be noted that costs of that application were awarded in favour of the present Respondents. [8]  In my view, a consideration of the costs of the reconsideration application cannot extend to a consideration of the initial application. This Court must accordingly consider what occurred in the reconsideration application. [9]  As stated above, both parties were successful during the reconsideration application and this factor is the overriding factor in coming to a decision as to who should be awarded costs in the said application. [10]  In the result, I am of the view that because of the success of both parties in the reconsideration application each party must pay their own costs of the said application and this opposed application. [11]  Accordingly, the following Order shall issue: a).  Each party shall pay their own costs in respect of the costs reserved on 18 April 2019; b).  Each party shall pay their own costs in this application. G ALLY ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG 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 19 February 2024. Date of virtual hearing:       1 February 2022 Date of judgment:               19 February 2024 Appearances: Attorneys for the Applicants MADHLOPA & THENGA INC commercial@madhlopathenda.co.za Counsel for Applicants Adv. L. Nyangiwe Attorneys for the Respondents JAQUES CLASSEN ATTORNEYS jaques@propdevlaw.co.za Counsel for the Respondents Adv. R. de Leeuw [1] Caselines: Section E1-E2 [2] Caselines: B4-B7 sino noindex make_database footer start