- The High Court in the Western Cape dismissed the City of Cape Town's application for leave to appeal.
- The court found the proposed appeal was moot since the January 2026 event dates had already passed.
- The city was ordered to pay all costs of the application, including those for two counsel where employed.
The Cape Town Minstrel Carnival Association has claimed a second victory over the City of Cape Town. The High Court in the Western Cape dismissed the city’s attempt to appeal an earlier judgment that ordered it to provide a suitable venue for the association’s January 2026 minstrel competitions.
The city tried to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, or alternatively to a Full Court, against a December 2025 judgment that compelled it to make a suitable venue available for the association’s events on 1, 10, 17 and 24 January 2026.
Judge J Lekhuleni found that the appeal stood no reasonable chance of success and that the dispute was now moot.
Venue dispute
The dispute began when the association requested to book Vygieskraal Stadium for its January 2026 minstrel competitions. On 13 August 2025, the association formally requested the venue. The city confirmed the dates were available, and the association submitted all the required documents.
The city sent a booking confirmation letter on 17 September 2025, and a revised version two days later to fix a typographical error. Three days later, on 22 September 2025, the city cancelled the booking and told the association that Vygieskraal Stadium was not available for those dates.
According to the association, the city gave no reason for the cancellation and did not offer an alternative venue. The association challenged the decision and asked the city for help finding another venue that could host the events.
Urgent application succeeds
The association eventually went to court urgently, seeking an order forcing the city to provide a suitable venue. The court granted the request and ordered the city to make a suitable venue available within its jurisdiction for the minstrel competitions. The city was also ordered to pay the costs of that court application.
When applying for leave to appeal, the city argued that the matter wasn’t urgent, the court had wrongly granted a final interdict, factual disputes existed, and the city had no constitutional obligation to provide another venue.
The city also challenged findings about legitimate expectation and its compliance with the Safety at Sports and Recreational Events Act.
Court finds appeal moot
The association argued that the appeal was moot because the January 2026 event dates had already passed. The court agreed.
Judge Lekhuleni explained that filing the appeal made the dispute moot, as the period in which the event was supposed to be held had already passed.
The judge found that even if leave to appeal were granted, there would be no practical effect, as the city could no longer provide a venue for the January 2026 events. A hearing of the appeal would be a futile academic exercise, the judgment said.
Booking remained binding
A central issue in the judgment was the city’s decision to withdraw a booking that had already been confirmed. The court held that once a booking is confirmed, the city cannot simply revoke that decision on its own.
The judge said that once the city confirmed the booking, it could not revoke the decision unilaterally. The court found that booking confirmation is an administrative action and remains binding unless set aside by a court.
Judge Lekhuleni said that if the city believed the booking confirmation was unlawful, it should have approached the court to review and set aside the decision. The judgment said it was not permissible for the city to withdraw that decision on its own, without the court’s intervention.
SASREA argument rejected
The city argued that Vygieskraal Stadium was certified only for low-risk events and could not lawfully host the minstrel competitions, which they regarded as medium-risk gatherings.
During the leave to appeal proceedings, the city also said that the booking confirmation had been issued in error. The court rejected this argument.
Judge Lekhuleni noted that the city had not raised this argument in its affidavit during the main application, nor had it explained when it became aware that the venue allegedly did not meet the required risk grading.
The judge said the city could not make its case during an application for leave to appeal; that ship has already sailed.
No prospects of success
After considering all six grounds of appeal, the court found the city had failed to show any reasonable prospects of success or a compelling reason why an appeal should be heard.
Judge Lekhuleni said that granting the city leave to appeal to the SCA or the Full Court would be a waste of judicial resources. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
The city was ordered to pay all costs of the application, including those for two counsel where employed.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
