Millu v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Another (supplemental judgment) (25039/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 420 (29 April 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 420 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Millu v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Another (supplemental judgment) (25039/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 420 (29 April 2024) Millu v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Another (supplemental judgment) (25039/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 420 (29 April 2024) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2024_420.html sino date 29 April 2024 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG Case no: 25039/20211 1. REPORTABLE: no 2. OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: yes In the matter between: PETER TANYA MILLU                                                          Applicant And CITY OF JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN                    First Respondent MUNICIPALITY CITY POWER SOC LTD                                                       Second Respondent SUPPLEMENTARY JUDGMENT This judgment has been delivered by electronic transmission on the online database of the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa, Johannesburg, on 22 April 2024 at 10h00 and by email transmission to the attorneys of record. Per Sutherland DJP: [1]  This is a supplemental judgment to that which I handed down on 19 March 2024, [2024] ZAGJHC 291 (GJ). It should read as an appendix to that judgment. [2]  The supplementary judgment became necessary because of the orders made in that judgment as follows: ‘ Mr Ngwana, the legal advisor must make representations within 10 days of the service of this order in which he offers reasons why he should not personally be ordered to pay 10% of the costs incurred; a failure to timeously deliver such representations shall result in a supplementary order being made to that effect. This judgment must be brought to the attention of the Mayor, the City Manager, the Head of revenue collection in the City and to the chief legal advisor.’ [3]  Mr Ngwana has filed an affidavit, as ordered. In it he addresses why, in his view, he should not personally share with the City, the obligation to pay the costs order. [4]  In this affidavit the deponent explains his personal role as a mere conduit for City Power, the entity which is responsible for the operational aspects of supplying electricity and computing what is owed by the householder for that service. [5]  He further explains that in regard to the nub of this case, i.e. the failure to file heads of argument, he was induced to believe that this obligation could be excused by addressing the dispute over accurate billing by operational means carried out by City Power. By such means, so was the intention, the dispute would be settled.  The decision to take this step might have originated from Mr Baloyi the instructing attorney, but the statement on this score is not wholly clear. The flaw in this reasoning is that such a decision cannot be taken unilaterally. [6]  I am satisfied thar Mr Ngwana’s role is indeed that of a mere minion in the organisational arrangement of the City for dealing with this category of dispute. Accordingly, I am satisfied that he ought not to share in the burden of paying the costs order. I accept his declaration of bona fides. I have already addressed the role of the legal practitioners and say no more on that aspect. [6]  I bears mention that the intrinsic dysfunctionality in the administration of the City, as regards this category of dispute, upon which I have commented adversely in the principal judgment, is vividly corroborated by these revelations. [7]  The experience of the householder as described in this matter is no aberration. In the principal judgment I alluded to the observation of Strydom J on a similar debacle in which it seems the same legal team from the City were implicated. As fate would have it, Chetty J handed down, on 5 April 2024, an extensive and comprehensive judgment dealing with the same genus of dysfunctionality in the billing by the City. ( Ackerman  v City of Johannesburg and others [2024] ZAGJHC 334 (GJ) ) The pattern of administrative failure that ends up in litigation at the expense of the ratepayers is a disgrace. [8]  The crisis of accountability – or rather, the lack thereof – in public institutions must be arrested. The suggestion that the executive officers of the City be cited in their personal capacities seems an appropriate practice to be adopted by litigation attorneys and I encourage that to be done. Accountability from those who are culpable must be exacted. Roland Sutherland Deputy Judge President, Gauteng Division, Johannesburg. Heard:                                         4 March 2024 Judgment:                                   18 March 2024. Supplementary Judgment:          29 April 2024 Appearances: For the Applicant: Adv J Peter SC Instructed by Kaveer Guiness Incorporated. For the First and Second Respondents: Adv E Sithole Instructed by Madhlopa and Thenga Incorporated. sino noindex make_database footer start