- The High Court in Pretoria found the City of Tshwane and its municipal manager in contempt for failing to comply with a detailed October 2023 court order relating to municipal accounts, refunds, and information.
- Despite repeated notices and opportunities, the municipal manager failed to file the required affidavit or explain non-compliance, while the City’s responses were found vague and insufficient.
- The court ordered full compliance by January 2026, an affidavit from the municipal manager, and punitive costs against the municipality, warning that personal sanctions remain possible.
Uniqon Developer and Uniqon Wonings, both property development companies, approached the High Court in Pretoria after what the judgment described as “many years of frustrations” with the City of Tshwane, its officials, and management.
The catalyst for the contempt proceedings was the City’s failure to comply with a court order issued on 16 October 2023. This order required the municipality to provide regular and accurate municipal account statements, address complaints, resolve disputes, and process refunds for overpaid assessment rates. It also obliged the municipal manager to file an affidavit explaining any inability to comply with the order.
Despite clear and repeated directions, the City failed to meet the court’s deadlines, and the municipal manager never submitted the required affidavit. The applicants and their legal representatives repeatedly contacted the municipality, issuing reminders and letters of demand.
The responses from the City ranged from vague promises of future compliance to claims of resource constraints, but none included the required explanations or information.
As Acting Judge D van den Bogert observed, “The fact that this did not happen is without doubt contemptuous. The court order gave the municipal manager a way in which he/she could come and explain difficulties that may have been experienced. Yet, that invitation is ignored. It makes the conduct increasingly egregious.”
Court rejects City’s claims of effort and finds non-compliance wilful
In its defence, the City argued that it had made “significant efforts” towards compliance, some of which purportedly dated back to long before the order was issued. The court dismissed these arguments, stating, “Efforts towards complying with an order do not constitute compliance. It is the antithesis of it.”
When the municipality finally produced a spreadsheet intended to evidence compliance, the judge described it as “the most unintelligible document,” noting that it was not explained and did not meet the requirements set out by the court.
The court held that, once non-compliance was established, wilfulness and mala fides were presumed unless the respondents could provide convincing evidence to the contrary, which they did not.
Although the applicants sought a personal fine against the municipal manager, the court declined to grant one at this stage, noting that the manager had only been cited in his official capacity.
However, Acting Judge van den Bogert made it clear that this did not rule out future action: “There is, however, nothing that stops the applicant, bearing in mind this civil contempt finding to, should the municipal manager persist with this egregious conduct, bring another contempt application against the municipal manager in his personal capacity and seek a sanction against him personally.”
Final order and costs
In the closing paragraphs of the judgment, the court declared both the City of Tshwane and its municipal manager to be in contempt of the court’s order of 16 October 2023. Both were ordered to comply fully with the original order by 16 January 2026.
The municipal manager was specifically instructed to file an affidavit by that same date, explaining both the reasons for disregarding the 2023 court order and the failure to deliver the affidavit originally required.
The applicants were granted leave to join the municipal manager in his or her personal capacity and to seek further relief should the pattern of non-compliance continue. The City of Tshwane was ordered to pay the costs of the application on the attorney and client scale.
Acting Judge van den Bogert concluded emphatically: “The disregard of judicial authority must be condemned and denounced in the strongest possible terms.”
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
