- High Court dismisses Ditsobotla Municipality’s late bid to appeal and refuses condonation for an unexplained three-month delay.
- The court finds no real dispute on the R7.5 million owed for emergency electricity repairs and rejects the alleged procurement illegality.
- Municipality ordered to pay punitive attorney-and-client costs for what the court called abuse of process and unjust enrichment.
The High Court in Mahikeng has delivered a scathing judgment against Ditsobotla Local Municipality, dismissing both its application for condonation and its bid for leave to appeal a R7.5 million payment order in favour of Kwende Construction CC.
Acting Judge CSP Oosthuizen-Senekal not only shut the door on the appeal, but also reprimanded the municipality for what she described as an abuse of court process, ordering it to pay punitive costs on an attorney-and-client scale.
The ruling follows an earlier judgment in July 2025, where the same court ordered Ditsobotla to pay Kwende R7.5 million plus interest for emergency electrical repairs carried out after the municipality’s electricity system collapsed across six areas.
Kwende had been appointed on an emergency basis in November 2023, completed the work, received a Certificate of Completion from the municipality, and was later issued with a written Acknowledgment of Debt. Only R1 million was paid before Ditsobotla refused to settle the balance.
It is significant to note that Ditsobotla Municipality is currently under Section 139(7) administration, meaning that the National Cabinet Representative assumed all executive powers, including oversight of litigation and approval of the decisions of the Municipal Manager. Despite this administrative oversight, the court emphasised that the municipality’s procedural failures and delayed filings were not excused.
Court unmoved by late application and shifting excuses
In addressing the municipality’s attempt to revive the matter, Judge Oosthuizen-Senekal made it clear that the starting point was not sympathy, but compliance with the rules.
“Rule 49(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court requires a litigant who seeks leave to appeal to deliver such application… within fifteen court days of the order or judgment,” the judge wrote.
Ditsobotla missed that deadline and compounded the problem by waiting nearly three months before even applying for condonation. The explanation offered, that its attorneys refused to proceed due to unpaid legal fees, did not impress the court.
“The explanation furnished by Ditsobotla is materially deficient,” the judge held. “It does not disclose when the decision to pursue an appeal was taken, nor does it indicate when its legal representatives were instructed… Most glaringly, the entire three-month interval… is left wholly unexplained.”
Drawing on binding authority from the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court, Judge Oosthuizen-Senekal underscored that condonation is not granted at will. “A vague, incomplete, or selective account is insufficient,” she wrote, stating that an applicant must explain every period of delay fully. She added that a last-minute condonation application “demonstrates not diligence but reactive litigation conduct”.
No dispute, no defence and no prospects
On the substance of the appeal, the court was equally damning. Ditsobotla advanced a raft of arguments, claiming a dispute on the amount owed, alleging procurement irregularities, and challenging the emergency appointment of Kwende. None survived judicial scrutiny.
“The allegation that there existed a material dispute of fact barring motion procedure is contradicted by the evidential record,” the judge wrote.
The municipality, she noted, produced no invoices, no alternative calculations and no documentary evidence to support its claims. In contrast, Kwende presented a clear chain of documentation in the form of the emergency appointment letter, the Certificate of Completion, the signed Acknowledgment of Debt, and proof of part-payment.
“Ditsobotla never once disputed the quantum,” she said. “When confronted with its own records… it offered nothing more than generalised denial. Such bald denial is incapable of generating a genuine dispute of fact.”
On procurement, the court was blunt. Even if there had been flaws, the municipality had never taken the proper step of challenging its own decisions through formal review proceedings. “A municipality cannot sidestep review and resist contractual enforcement through collateral attack. Doing so violates legality itself.”
Judge Oosthuizen-Senekal also rejected the belated claim that no emergency existed when the contractor was appointed.
“The evidence of total collapse of the municipal electricity grid is uncontested. The challenge to the existence of an emergency is raised only after litigation commenced and is inconsistent with the conduct, documentation, and internal confirmations of the municipality at the time of performance.”
Municipality accused of enriching itself while refusing to pay
Perhaps the most striking aspect of the judgment lies in the court’s rebuke of Ditsobotla for continuing to profit from the very infrastructure it refuses to pay for. “For a municipality to resist payment… and simultaneously to enrich itself from the fruits of another party’s urgent labour, is at odds with principles of fairness, constitutional accountability and basic commercial morality,” the judge said.
Since December 2023, the municipality had continued supplying electricity to residents and businesses, billing consumers and collecting revenue, all while withholding payment from the contractor who restored the system.
“Ditsobotla has benefited structurally from the restoration of electrical services… and financially consolidated itself through ongoing revenue streams, all while steadfastly refusing to discharge the debt owed to the contractor,” she wrote.
Punitive costs for abuse of process
The judge said although courts are usually reluctant to impose harsh cost orders against municipalities, this case crossed the line. “This matter exemplifies abuse of process,” Judge Oosthuizen-Senekal found. She catalogued the municipality’s failures, missing deadlines, delaying court proceedings, advancing unsupported defences, and exploiting litigation as a shield against payment.
“Litigation may not be used as a shield to avoid lawful and acknowledged obligations,” she said. In a forceful conclusion, she ruled that punitive costs were not only appropriate but necessary. “A punitive cost order is therefore not simply appropriate, it is necessary to vindicate constitutional accountability, deter further abuse and express judicial disapproval.”
The appeal door is firmly closed
The court concluded that Ditsobotla had failed to meet the statutory threshold for leave to appeal under the Superior Courts Act.
“Every ground advanced by the applicant was fully canvassed, evaluated, and conclusively rejected… There is simply no legal or factual basis to conclude that another court would reach a different conclusion.”
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
