Case Law[2024] ZAGPJHC 549South Africa
AJ Murphy Flowers (Pty) Ltd v Mogale City Local Municipality (2024/054911) [2024] ZAGPJHC 549 (10 June 2024)
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
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAGPJHC 549
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
sino index
## AJ Murphy Flowers (Pty) Ltd v Mogale City Local Municipality (2024/054911) [2024] ZAGPJHC 549 (10 June 2024)
AJ Murphy Flowers (Pty) Ltd v Mogale City Local Municipality (2024/054911) [2024] ZAGPJHC 549 (10 June 2024)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2024_549.html
sino date 10 June 2024
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL
DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO: 2024-054911
In the matter between:
In the matter between:
AJ
MURPHY FLOWERS (PTY)
LTD
Applicant
and
MOGALE
CITY LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Respondent
Coram: Maenetje AJ
This
judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties’ legal representatives by email and uploading on
Caselines. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 10h00
on 10 June 2024.
JUDGMENT
Maenetje AJ:
Introduction
[1]
The applicant seeks urgent interim relief to protect itself and its
business against
an apprehended disconnection of municipal services
(water and electricity) by the respondent pending the outcome of
certain disputes
between the parties.
[2]
The applicant conducts the business of a hotel, a spa and a cosmetic
surgery.
It obtains the supply of water and electricity
from the respondent. It also pays rates and taxes to the
respondent.
It alleges that it faces a threat from the
municipality of an interruption of water and electricity services.
There are pending
disputes between the applicant and the respondent
over amounts that the respondent has charged the applicant for rates
and taxes.
There is a pending action in respect of the amounts
charged for rates and taxes, a pending objection, appeal and review
application
against the municipal valuation of the applicant’s
properties in respect of which rates and taxes are charged by the
respondent.
[3]
There is a pending notice of disconnection issued on 10 May 2024 by
the respondent
to disconnect municipal services to the applicant,
including water supply. Prior to this notice, the respondent
disconnected
municipal services to the applicant on 17 February 2023
notwithstanding the pending disputes. On 13 May 2024, and based
on
the notice of disconnection issued on 10 May 2024, the respondent
threatened to disconnect municipal services to the applicant.
[4]
Counsel for the respondent submitted that the disconnection of
municipal services
is not connected to the pending disputes over
rates and taxes. Counsel for the applicant countered this.
He referred
to an email of 13 May 2024 from the respondent to the
applicant which shows that the threat of disconnection relates to
charges
for both water supply and property valuation, i.e., rates and
taxes. The email confirms the submission of the applicant’s
counsel in this regard. The email states inter alia the following:
“
Good morning CFO,
Anushka [Dr Reddy],
…
According to the attached
accounts namely
00[…] – R790,999.79
and Account
No.
00[…] R4,629,426.52,
a total debt outstanding and
payable
now
to Mogale City is
R5,420,426.41.
…
We
have received
R500,000
for which we are very thankful for,
however, the amount equates to only
9% of the outstanding debt of
R5,420,426,41.
Therefore, in order to
prevent any further disconnections of our water services, an amount
of
R2,210,213.21
is payable today.
We
thank you,
Regards,
Shirly van Niekerk
Manager: CC & DC”.
[5]
The applicant anticipated that the respondent might disconnect
municipal services
on 20 May 2024. Had that happened, it
intended to supplement its affidavits and seek more urgent relief.
Some of the
pending disputes were to be resolved on 27 May 2024 when
the outcome of the appeal was anticipated to be released. They
have
not been resolved. The outcome of the appeal had not been
released when this matter was heard on 4 June 2024.
[6]
Although the applicant alleged in the founding affidavit that it had
a reasonable
belief that the respondent would still carry out its
threat to disconnect services notwithstanding the pending dispute,
given that
it had disconnected services previously, the respondent
has not said it would not do so pending the outcome of the pending
disputes.
It simply asserts its right to implement its credit
control measures. It also does not state on oath that it will
not act
on the disconnection notice issued on 10 May 2024.
That, instead, it would issue a new disconnection notice should it
decide
to disconnect the municipal services to the applicant in the
near future.
[7]
In this context, the applicant applies for the following specific
relief on an urgent
basis (and I refer only to the relief that
remains relevant as there was no disconnection of municipal services
on 20 May 2024
as the applicant had anticipated):
“
2.
That an interim interdict be granted, prohibiting the Respondent from
disconnecting
or in any way whatsoever restricting the supply of
municipal services (water and electricity) to Portions 7 and 8 of Erf
687 and
Erf 688 Featherbrooke Ext 8 (“the subject properties”)
pending the finalisation of:
2.1.
The pending action instituted by the Respondent against the Applicant
under case number: 2023/119901;
and
2.2.
An objection and appeal against the municipal valuation of the
subject properties and a review
application brought by the Applicant
against the Respondent challenging such municipal valuation.
3.
…
4.
That the Applicant be directed to pay for its monthly consumption of
municipal
services (water and electricity) whilst the aforesaid
interim interdict remains operative.
5.
That the Respondent be ordered to pay the costs of the application.
6.
Further and/or alternative relief.”
Urgency
[8]
The respondent disputes that the matter is urgent. It also
disputes that the
applicant is entitled to the relief that it seeks.
In essence, the respondent submits that the matter is not urgent
because
there is no threat of disconnection of municipal services and
that it is entitled by law to implement its credit control measures.
It may not be interdicted from implementing its credit control
measures. The latter contention also applies to the merits
of
the relief sought.
[9]
I am persuaded by the applicant that given that the respondent has
not stated on oath
that the notice of disconnection issued on 10 May
2024 is no longer in place and effective, its apprehension that the
respondent
may disconnect its municipal services (water and
electricity) in the absence of an interim interdict is reasonable.
The respondent
has also not stated on oath that notwithstanding the
notice of disconnection issued on 10 May 2024, should it now wish to
disconnect
municipal services to the applicant it would have to issue
a new notice of disconnection, affording the applicant the
opportunity
to seek urgent relief should it be so advised. The
respondent has simply more than once asserted its right to implement
its
credit control measures. These credit control measures
include the disconnection of municipal services (water and
electricity)
to the applicant notwithstanding the pending disputes
between the parties.
[10]
The applicant has no other remedy to prevent the reasonably
apprehended disconnection of municipal
services other than by
obtaining interim relief. The applicant would suffer immense
prejudice given the nature of its business
if the supply of water and
electricity is disconnected. If that happens, it may not obtain
substantial redress in due course.
[11]
The applicant allowed the respondent reasonable time frames to file
opposing affidavits.
[12]
I conclude that on the facts and circumstances that the applicant has
presented to the Court,
and which the respondent cannot genuinely
dispute, the matter is urgent.
The
merits
[13]
In my view, the applicant has made out a case for relief on the
well-known test for interim relief.
It is not necessary to
repeat the test here. My reasons for this conclusion follow
below.
[14]
I am satisfied on the facts that the applicant has raised genuine
disputes regarding the rates
and taxes that the respondent has
charged. Those disputes are pending. The applicant has
also established that the
respondent’s threatened disconnection
of municipal services relates also to the disputed amounts for rates
and taxes and
not just for charges for the supply of water. The
applicant is contractually entitled to receive the supply of water
and
electricity by the respondent for which it pays. It has a
right, even if open to doubt, not to have the supply of water and
electricity disconnected for purposes of enabling the municipality to
collect on the disputed amounts for rates and taxes which
are the
subject matter of the pending proceedings.
[15]
The applicant has demonstrated that it would suffer irreparable harm
if water and electricity
services are disconnected. Its
business, which I have described above, would suffer significant
prejudice. That prejudice
cannot be reversed later. The
balance of convenience favours the applicant. It does not
favour the respondent.
The applicant will continue to pay
monthly charges by the respondent for municipal services that it
consumes. If the pending
disputes are resolved in the
respondent’s favour, it will recover the disputed amounts for
rates and taxes. Also, pending
the outcome of the disputes, the
respondent will be entitled to apply its other credit control
measures except for the disconnection
of water and electricity to the
applicant.
[16]
In the circumstances, I make the following order:
(1)
The matter is heard as one of urgency,
non-compliance with the prescribed forms, manner of service and time
frames are condoned
in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6(12)
of the Uniform Rules of Court.
(2)
Pending the outcome of the action instituted by the respondent
against the applicant under
case number 2023/119901 and the objection
and appeal against the municipal valuation of Portions 7 and 8 of Erf
6[…] and
Erf 6[…] Featherbrooke Ext 8 (
the subject
properties
) and a review application brought by the applicant
against the respondent challenging such municipal valuation (
the
pending proceedings
):
(2.1)
the respondent is interdicted and restrained from disconnecting or in
any way restricting the supply of
municipal services (water and
electricity) to the subject properties; and
(2.2)
the applicant is directed to pay for its monthly consumption of
municipal services (water and electricity).
(3)
The interim interdict in paragraph 2.1 above does not preclude the
respondent from lawfully
disconnecting the supply of municipal
services to the applicant as part of its credit control measures in
respect of any other
outstanding amounts due and payable by the
applicant save for the disputed amounts that form part of the pending
proceedings.
(4)
The respondent is directed to pay the costs of the application,
including the costs of two counsel where
two counsel were employed.
________________________________________
NH
MAENETJE
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG LOCAL
DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Date
of hearing
: 4 June
2024
Date
of judgment
: 10 June
2024
For
the applicants:
JA Venter
T Qhali
Instructed
by Fairbridges Wertheim Becker
For
the respondent:
R Ramatselela
Instructed
by Madhlopa & Thenga Inc
sino noindex
make_database footer start
Similar Cases
South African Securitisation Programme RF Ltd v Initiative for Specialized Resources Management (Pty) Ltd and Others (2023/045850) [2024] ZAGPJHC 545 (6 June 2024)
[2024] ZAGPJHC 545High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
South African Roadies Association v National Arts Councils of South Africa and Others (2023/076030) [2024] ZAGPJHC 936 (20 September 2024)
[2024] ZAGPJHC 936High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Ltd and Another v Lornavision (Pty) Ltd (49514/2017) [2024] ZAGPJHC 299 (19 March 2024)
[2024] ZAGPJHC 299High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
McGlashan N.O and Others v Fhulufhelo and Another (2023/042194) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1017 (11 October 2024)
[2024] ZAGPJHC 1017High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
South African Agricultural Machinery Association and Another v Motor Industry Ombudsman of South Africa and Others (20/44414) [2024] ZAGPJHC 824 (30 April 2024)
[2024] ZAGPJHC 824High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar