The City of Johannesburg applied for leave to appeal against a judgment handed down on 14 March 2025. The underlying matter involved a delictual claim by Changing Tides 74 (Pty) Ltd against the City. The original judgment had awarded damages in the amount of R12,374,993.00 plus mora interest from the date of summons to final payment. The parties' expert witnesses had reached an agreement that the damages amount already included mora interest from the date of summons to August 2024. The claim appears to have arisen from circumstances involving the City's failure to provide emergency accommodation to evictees, resulting in deprivation of property.
1. Leave to appeal is granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal. 2. Paragraph 40.1 of the Court's judgment is amended to read: "The defendant must pay the plaintiff damages in the amount of R12,374,993.00 together with mora interest of 11.75% per annum (the current mora rate) on this amount from the date of judgment to the date of final payment." 3. Costs to be costs in the cause.
The ratio decidendi of this leave to appeal judgment is that leave to appeal should be granted where a judgment raises important questions of constitutional rights and obligations that are likely to impact local authorities and many landowners. The test for wrongfulness as an element of delictual liability in the context of local authorities' obligations to provide emergency accommodation to evictees is a matter of sufficient public importance to warrant consideration by the Supreme Court of Appeal. Additionally, where parties and the court agree that there has been a patent error in calculating mora interest (such as double-counting interest already included in the damages amount), the court has the power to correct such error by amending the order to provide that mora interest runs from the date of judgment rather than from the date of summons.
The Court's observation that the judgment sets a precedent for future delictual claims against local authorities who failed to provide emergency accommodation to evictees suggests judicial recognition of the potential wider impact of the original decision. The Court also implicitly acknowledged that matters involving the constitutional obligations of municipalities, particularly in relation to emergency housing and evictions, are inherently matters of public interest that affect not only the immediate parties but society more broadly. This reflects the Court's understanding of the socio-economic context in which such disputes arise and the need for clear legal principles to guide local authorities in fulfilling their constitutional mandates.
This case is significant because it addresses complex questions regarding the delictual liability of local authorities in the context of their constitutional obligations to provide emergency accommodation to evictees. The judgment has broader implications for local authorities and landowners across South Africa regarding potential liability for failure to fulfill constitutional duties. The case also highlights the intersection between delictual law (particularly the elements of wrongfulness and fault) and constitutional rights and obligations. The granting of leave to appeal to the SCA indicates that these issues require authoritative determination at the highest level for purposes of legal certainty and consistency in future similar matters.