This is an application that has already been brought at the end of 2019 and where Sakeliga has on an urgent basis obtained an interim order against the Kgetlengrivier Local Municipality (Part A of the application) to prevent the latter from allowing municipal service delivery fees to be received via a third party, Ideal Prepaid. This case is important as Ideal Prepaid’s receipt of municipal service delivery fees came at the expense of the community.
In Part B of the application, the respondents have for more than a year failed to deliver the record of the respondents’ decision-making regarding the Ideal Prepaid appointment (the court rules require the respondents to deliver it upon opposing the application). The result was that Sakeliga had to bring an interlocutory application to compel the municipality to provide the record so that Sakeliga could proceed with the review application. The municipality opposed the application but failed to deliver any answering affidavits going forward. Sakeliga brought an application on 14 December 2021 to have the municipality’s defence, which was not backed up by opposing papers, scrapped and to receive a ruling in the main action in Sakeliga’s favour.
Case commenced: 3 October 2019
Court: High Court: Mahikeng
|31 May 2022||The Respondents failed to comply with the March 29 order, and Sakeliga persists with an application to finally scrap the respondents’ defense.|
|26 April 2022||The order of March 29 is served on the respondents and they have 21 days to comply with the order.|
|29 March 2022||The High Court in Mahikeng decides that they are not prepared to entirely scrap the respondents’ defense at this stage, and provides an opportunity for the respondents to file their complete record of decision-making in terms of the court rules within 21 days.|
|14 December 2021||The municipal manager persists in failing to file his record of decision-making in terms of the court rules, and Sakeliga brings an application in the High Court in Mahikeng to scrap the respondents’ defence so that the court can proceed with judgment in Sakeliga’s favour.|
|26 August 2021||Sakeliga’s legal team writes to the municipal manager’s legal team to point out that the records provided as per the court rules are not complete and that the municipal manager remains in failure to comply with the court rules.|
|10 June 2021||The municipal manager of Kgetlengrivier Local Municipality files an erroneous (unsigned) affidavit to explain that some of the records to be rendered by the municipal manager do not exist. Following a letter from Sakeliga’s legal team, a valid affidavit is filed.|
|26 May 2021||After several delays caused by the respondents in the case, including failure to deliver their record of decision making as required by the court rules, Sakeliga grants a final postponement to the respondents to deliver their record of decision making by 4 June.|
|1 November 2019||Sakeliga obtains judgment in its favor in respect of Part A of the application – an interdict against the Kgetlengrivier Municipality and Ideal Prepaid. The interdict is granted pending part B of the application.|
|3 October 2019||Sakeliga files court papers at the High Court in Mahikeng and hereby launches the case.|