Giant Signs (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg and Another (084439/2024) [2026] ZAGPJHC 59 (21 January 2026)

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 >> 2026 >> [2026] ZAGPJHC 59 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Giant Signs (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg and Another (084439/2024) [2026] ZAGPJHC 59 (21 January 2026) Giant Signs (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg and Another (084439/2024) [2026] ZAGPJHC 59 (21 January 2026) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2026_59.html sino date 21 January 2026 # IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA # GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO :  084439/2024 DATE :  21-01-2026 (1)  REPORTABLE:      NO (2)  OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES :    NO (3)  REVISED SIGNATURE                  DATE: 21 January 2026 In the matter between GIANT SIGNS (PTY) LTD                                      Applicant and CITY OF JOHANNESBURG First Respondent HYDE PARK CORNER (PTY) LTD Second Respondent JUDGMENT EX TEMPORE WILSON, J : The applicant seeks to compel the second respondent to comply with a notice issued under rule 35 (12).  The documents sought consist of an application and further supporting material made to the first respondent to move a property line. The location of the property line is material to the issues in the main application. The application to compel was opposed by the second respondent on the basis that the decision to move the property line was made after the decision challenged in the main application was made and also after the main application was instituted. I put to Mr Kruger, who appeared for the second respondent, that even were that so, the fact of the change of the location of the property line and the material on which the decision to change the location of the property line was made might still be relevant to any just and equitable relief that might be granted if the decision challenged in the main application is reviewed and set aside. Mr Kruger could not really gainsay that proposition and he made no submissions against it.  I think that was a wise decision. It seems to me that the material that the applicant seeks is entirely relevant at least to the relief that might be ordered in the main application. For all of those reasons there will be an order compelling compliance with the rule 35(12) notice.  Ms Kabelo, who appeared for the applicant, rather adventurously asked for costs on scale C.  She will have costs on scale A.  A draft order has been handed up to me which I have amended. I shall endorse it on those terms. That order is signed and dated marked “X”. WILSON, J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT 21 January 2026 sino noindex make_database footer start