The Municipality of Plettenberg Bay v Van Dyk & Co Inc

The respondent, Van Dyk & Co Inc, rendered professional services to the applicant municipality. It was common cause that the services were rendered, the municipality benefited from them, and the charges were reasonable. The municipality refused to pay, alleging that the employee who instructed the respondent lacked authority to do so, as no special resolution had been passed in terms of section 58(1) of the Municipal Ordinance 20 of 1974 (Cape). The High Court rejected this defence, holding that the employee had ostensible authority and that the municipality was estopped, applying the rule in Turquand. The municipality sought leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court but failed to comply with Rule 18(2) of the Constitutional Court Rules, which required it to first obtain a certificate from the High Court.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

The case underscores the Constitutional Court’s strict approach to compliance with its procedural rules and affirms that deliberate non-compliance will generally not be condoned. It highlights the importance of Rule 18 (as it then stood) in regulating access to the Constitutional Court and reinforces procedural discipline in constitutional litigation, particularly by organs of state.