Peter vs City of Johannesburg MM and City of Power case no 25039/21 2024 [ZAGPJHC]

A court has the inherent jurisdiction to strike out a defence as a sanction for a party's egregious and deliberate defiance of a court order, especially where such defiance constitutes an abuse of the court process and the interests of justice are served by striking out the defense.

Author

Ross Shepstone
March 29, 2024

The applicant, Tanya Millu Peter, is a ratepayer and owner of a house in Johannesburg under the jurisdiction of the respondent City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (the City).

The dispute is about whether the accounts rendered by the City to the applicant for electricity supplied to her home are accurate. The applicant alleges that the City has been charging her based on estimated consumption rather than actual meter readings.



The applicant filed a main application on May 21, 2021, seeking an interdict and relief pending a final reconciliation of the electricity account. The City delayed in opposing the application, filing an answering affidavit only on the eve of an application for default judgment in January 2022, around 8 months late. The applicant brought an application to strike out the City's answering affidavit for lack of condonation for the delay, but later withdrew it to expedite the proceedings.

[17] It is trite that since ancient times it has been recognised that courts enjoy an inherent jurisdiction to protect the integrity of the court process. The sheer arrogant indifference of the City and its dishonourable behaviour is manifest. Organs of state are expected to behave honourably. Apparently, the City expects that it can at the same time disrespect the fundamentals of the litigation system and continue with impunity to participate in that litigation system to protect its rights. Such behaviour cannot be tolerated precisely because it is calculated to abuse the process of the court.

Sutherland DJP



The City further delayed in filing heads of argument, prompting the applicant to obtain an order from the Special Interlocutory Court (SIC) on October 2, 2023, directing the City to file its heads of argument within 10 days, failing which the applicant could apply to strike out the City's defence. The City failed to comply with the SIC order, filing no heads of argument for over 5 months without explanation or seeking condonation, leading to the present application by the applicant to strike out the City's defence.

"The inadequacy of the respondent's engagement with the case advanced by the applicant is evident; the critical jurisprudential issue being whether the City has complied with its own regulations. The allegations of its failure are not rebutted but are evaded in the answering affidavit. Shorn of the minutiae, the answering affidavit whinges that the reconciliations are now correct and it is up to the applicant to point out an error, if one exists. No account of the progress through the debt control regulations is offered in the answering affidavit, an aspect belaboured in the applicant's case."

Sutherland DJP



A court has the inherent jurisdiction to strike out a defence as a sanction for a party's egregious and deliberate defiance of a court order, especially where such defiance constitutes an abuse of the court process and the interests of justice are served by striking out the defense. The court must exercise this discretionary power by taking a holistic view of the facts and circumstances of the case to protect the integrity and efficiency of the judicial process.

The court referred to the following cases in its reasoning process:
Ether (Pty) Ltd v Silver 1947 (4) SA 173 (W)
Helen Suzman Foundation v President RSA 2015 (2) SA 1 (CC)
Capitec Bank Ltd v Mangena [2023] ZAGPJHC 225 (16 March 2023)
Gefen and Another v De Wet No 2022 (3) SA 465 (GJ)
Ex Parte Minister of Home Affairs 2024 (2) SA 58 (CC)



The court' held that the City of Johannesburg displayed arrogant and dishonorable behavior by disrespecting the court process and litigation system, which the court found intolerable and an abuse of the court process.