Blue Anvil Trading (Pty) Limited v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: De Vries J
• Judgment Date: 01 April 2014
• Docket Number: 37511/13
• Court: Gauteng Division, Pretoria
• Hearing Date: 01 March 2014
• Citation: 2014 JDR 1065 (GP)

De Vries AJ:

When this matter was called it contained the following prayers in the Notice of Motion prayed for by the Applicant:-

2014 JDR 1065 p2

De Vries AJ:

1.

That the First and Second Respondents be held in contempt of Court Order of the aforementioned Honourable Court dated the 9th of October 2012 issued by the Honourable, Mr. Justice Hiemstra;

2.

That the Third Respondent be committed to imprisonment for a period of sixty (60) days, which committal order be suspended in its entirety on condition that the First and Third Respondents comply with the abovementioned Court Order within seven (7) days of granting of this Order;

3.

That the First Respondent be ordered to pay the Applicant's costs on a scale between Attorney and own Client;

4.

Further and/or alternative relief.

5.

It was pointed out to the parties by the Court that according to the Founding papers of the Applicant that the dispute between the parties under the contract giving rise to this dispute commenced in February 2011 and that the duration thereof was for three (3) year period which would have ended the contract by fluction of time in February 2014.

2014 JDR 1065 p3

De Vries AJ:

6.

Consequently in order in terms of the prayer would not be capable of fulfilment by the Respondent as there were no more obligation in existence for the First Respondent to comply with were an Order b e granted in May of 2014.

7.

The matter stood down and the Court was informed that the concerns raised were shared by both Applicant and Respondents' Counsel,( both who have overlooked this point) and that the Applicant's Application could clearly not proceed.

8.

The only question to be decided is that of costs against the back ground of the history of the matter. In order to exercise the Court's discretion in the award of costs, are set out in a very brief synopsis of the history of the dispute between the parties.

9.

Shortly after the agreement between the Applicant and the Respondent had been concluded in February 2011, a second tender was put out by the First Respondent, under tender number CB 82 2011, the Applicant also tendered in respect thereof and was successful.

2014 JDR 1065 p4

De Vries AJ:

10.

The two tenders differed in the following respects with regard to the vehicles used for refuge removal services in the sense that the first tender the Applicant was obliged to supply the First Respondent with suitable vehicles and a...