South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

You are here:  SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town >> 2009 >> [2009] ZAWCHC 108

| Noteup | LawCite

Real People Housing (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town (9692/2007) [2009] ZAWCHC 108 (28 January 2009)

Download original files

RTF format

Bookmark/share this page

Bookmark and Share

JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
CASE NO
: 9692/2007

DATE: 28 JANUARY 2009

In the matter between:

REAL PEOPLE HOUSING (PTY) LTD APPLICANT

and

THE CITY OF CAPE TOWN RESPONDENT





JUDGMENT (Application for Leave to Appeal)




YEKISO. J:



In my view the matter in respect of which the applicant is applying for leave to appeal revolves largely around the interpretation and the application of the provisions of Section 118(1) of the Local Government Municipal Systems Act, 32 of 2000.



It seems to me that, in as much as this piece of legislation has been an issue before various forums, in particular the Constitutional Court in the matter of Mkontwana, a matter of the interpretation of the provisions of Section 118(1) of the aforementioned piece of legislation has never been specifically dealt with as an issue either in Mkontwana or in any of the other authorities that I have referred to in my judgment.



Whilst I believe that my approach in the judgment I delivered on 21 November 2008 is correct, I am nonetheless of the view that, firstly, because of the importance of the matter to the parties and secondly, because of the potential impact the interpretation of the provisions of Section 118(1) of the Municipal Systems Act might have on local authorities, it therefore Is in the interest of justice that the applicant be afforded a benefit of wisdom of more than one judge in the interpretation to be accorded to the relevant section, and, of course, it is so that the interpretation of statutes, not being any form of a science of mathematical exactitude, that there always is a possibility that another Court might attach a different interpretation to the aforementioned provisions to the one I have given, and for those reasons I am inclined to GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL and the costs of this application for leave to appeal will be costs in the proposed appeal.



YEKISO, J