Tshwane metro and municipal manager guilty of contempt of court, fined R500 000

The City of Tshwane (CoT) and municipal manager Johann Mettler have been found guilty of contempt of court, with Mettler fined R500 000 suspended for 31 days, for the failure over 18 years to approve the transfer of a parcel of properties to the Pretoria Educational Centre (PEC).

Former municipal manager Mmaseabato Mutlaneng was initially cited in the January 2025 application.

Read:

Acting Judge Romeo Nthambeleni ordered in the High Court in Pretoria last week that the fine be suspended on condition that the city remedies the contempt within 15 calendar days and proceeds to pass transfer on the immovable property to the PEC in terms of a judgment handed down on 28 January 2025.

The city was ordered to pay the costs of the application brought by the PEC.

Sale agreement

The PEC, a close corporation situated in Arcadia in Pretoria, applied for relief against the city and its municipal manager to approve the transfer of the properties owned by the city to the PEC in line with the provisions of a sale agreement entered into between them in 2006.

The city and PEC on 7 July 2006 entered into an “interim lease agreement” to operate pending the conclusion of a sale agreement and transfer of the properties.

However, the city refused to transfer the properties, and in 2007 the centre applied to the high court for an order to compel it to do so.

The city opposed that application, claiming the properties were needed for social housing.

But on 28 August 2007 the court granted a court order in favour of the PEC.

A rescission application by the city of that judgment in May 2024 – 16 years after the judgment was issued – was dismissed, with the court referring to the “bureaucratic dithering” of the city.

On 28 January 2025, Judge Thembile Joyini ordered the city to sign the documentation required by the PEC to effect the registration of the parcel of properties within 14 days.

Joyini further ordered that, in the event that the city failed and/or refused to sign any of these documents, the Sheriff of the High Court for Pretoria Central, or his duly authorised deputy, was authorised to sign such documents on behalf of the PEC.

She further granted the PEC permission to approach the court on the same papers if the city failed to comply with her order to “seek an order for payment of a fine” by the city. Costs were awarded against the city.

The city failed to comply with Joyini’s order, and the PEC applied in July this year for an urgent order declaring the city and Mettler to be held in contempt of court of the high court orders issued in August 2007, 22 May 2024 and 28 January 2025.

Transfer ‘commenced’

Acting Judge Nthambeleni noted that at the date of launching the contempt application, the transfer process had commenced and was in an advanced stage of happening.

He said this led the PEC to believe the properties would eventually be transferred, although the conveyancing attorneys confirmed that the required documentation had, up to the date of the institution of the contempt application on 8 May 2025, not been signed by the city.

Nthambeleni said the city filed an application for leave to appeal the order issued by Joyini on 19 May 2025, 73 court days after the judgment was handed down.

He said the city’s attorneys then, by way of letter dated 27 May 2025, confirmed that as a result of the extremely belated leave to appeal, no further steps would be taken by the city to effect the transfer of the properties.

The city has “thus now confirmed that the whole transfer process has been completely immobilised”.

“The said letter establishes all the jurisdictional requirements for [the] applicant [PEC] to be successful with the contempt of court application.”

Rule of law

Nthambeleni stressed that compliance with court orders is an issue of fundamental concern for a society that seeks to base itself on the rule of law – and that the merits of this matter clearly demonstrate contempt that is common cause between the parties that is only justified by the leave to appeal that has been filed by the city.

He said the argument raised was that the city was advised by senior counsel that the judgment being appealed was flawed in various respects.

But he stressed that the unique role occupied by the judiciary since the dawn of democracy is entrenched in the Constitution, with Section 165 stating: “An order or decision issued by a court binds all persons to whom and organs of state to which it applies.”

Nthambeleni said this section, read together with the supremacy clause of the Constitution, provides that courts are vested with judicial authority and that no person or organ of state may interfere with the functioning of the courts.

“Therefore, there can never be any opinion of a senior counsel that justifies non-compliance with any court orders in South Africa or any jurisdiction governed under the rule of law,” he said.

“To justify such conduct will amount to anarchy and this court is enjoined by the Constitution to ensure that court orders are complied with as long as they are issued by a court of law and not overturned.”

Follow Moneyweb’s in-depth finance and business news on WhatsApp here.