THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

JUDGMENT

Reportable
Case Number  :  177 / 2006

In the matter between

CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY
APPELLANT

and

RPM BRICKS PROPRIETARY LIMITED
RESPONDENT

Coram :
HARMS ADP, FARLAM, LEWIS, PONNAN JJA et MUSI AJA

Date of hearing :
5 MARCH 2007

Date of delivery : 27 MARCH 2007

SUMMARY

Estoppel – raising of against a statutory body – distinction between acts which are ultra vires and non-
compliance with internal arrangements – reliance on estoppel in former case – not permissible.

Neutral citation:  This judgment may be referred to as :
City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v RPM Bricks (Pty) Ltd [2007] SCA 28 (RSA)

___________________________________________________________________

PONNAN  JA

[1] On 5 July 2001 the council of the present appellant, the City of Tshwane
Metropolitan Municipality (the defendant in the court below), resolved to add the
respondent, RPM Bricks Proprietary Limited (the plaintiff in the court below), to its list
of already approved suppliers for the supply and delivery of coal to its Pretoria West
and Rooiwal power stations. For convenience I will refer to the parties by their
appellation in the court below.

[2] The plaintiff was thus duly placed on the council's list of approved coal
suppliers on inter alia the following terms:
(a)
the supply contract was to commence on 1 April 2001 and to endure for a
period of three years;
(b)
the coal was to be despatched by rail to the railway sidings of the respective
power stations;
(c)
the total price for all coal delivered during any calendar month was to be paid
within 30 days after receipt by the city electrical engineer of a fully specified
account;
(d)
the price payable for the coal supplied and delivered had two component
parts, namely, the free on rail ('FOR') price of the coal per ton (which varied
according to the calorific value of the coal) plus the railage cost; and

(e)
the FOR and railage prices were to be fixed for the first year of the contract,
whereafter prices were to increase in accordance with the producer price
index for the previous year.

[3] By letter dated 10 July 2001 the plaintiff was officially informed that it had
been added to the list of coal suppliers of the defendant and that it could proceed
with the execution of the tender.  Nothing happened however until May 2002.  The
reason for this was that Spoornet, which was buckling under the pressure of existing
orders and did not have any available railway carriages, was unwilling to enter into
transportation contracts with new clients such as the plaintiff. To address this
difficulty, at a meeting with employees of the defendant during May 2002, the plaintiff
expressed a willingness to deliver coal by road.  Pursuant to that meeting, on 15 May
2002 the plaintiff despatched a letter to one of the defendant’s employees indicating
that it was willing and able to supply 30 000 tons of coal by road transport.  There
followed in that letter a schedule of prices for coal of different calorific values.

[4] On 28 May 2002 the defendant placed an initial order with the plaintiff and,
after a trial run using road transportation, placed several more orders with the
plaintiff for the month of June.  On 13 June 2002 the plaintiff despatched a letter to
the defendant in which it recorded:
'As you are aware Transnet at present cannot supply rail trucks and this has now forced everybody to
turn to road transport which in turn has created a golden opportunity for the owners of trucks to
demand very high fees for road transport . . . ‘.
There followed a schedule of prices.  The letter continued
'Be rest assured that the moment that Transnet can supply rail trucks again on a regular basis we
trust that we will then be able to reduce our prices as follows . . . ‘.

A schedule of lower prices then followed.  Whilst awaiting a response to that letter
the plaintiff continued to deliver coal by road at the price originally agreed with
reference to rail transportation.

[5] By letter dated 22 August 2002 the plaintiff was informed that its application
for an increase in price had been approved and that the new prices, which would
come into effect on 1 July 2002, would be as set out in a document annexed thereto.
The plaintiff implemented its terms with retrospective effect to that date and invoiced
the municipality for the difference between the original price and the increased price
for the months of July and August. These invoices were paid by the defendant.  The
plaintiff continued thereafter to supply and deliver coal to the defendant at the
increased price for the remainder of 2002 and the month of January 2003. It invoiced
the defendant and was paid up to and including November 2002.

[6] On 8 January 2003 the plaintiff received a letter from the defendant which
read: 'Your final account for December 2002 to the amount of R1 755 485.80 has been settled
without alterations.'
The consequent payment anticipated by the plaintiff after receipt of that letter did not
materialise.  Instead, by letter dated 30 January 2003, the plaintiff was informed that
the incorrect annexure had inadvertently been affixed to the municipality's letter of
22 August 2002.  The correct annexure which, it was asserted, had to replace the
previous annexure, was enclosed.

[7] The plaintiff’s subsequent demand for payment for the months of December
2002 and January 2003 elicited the response from the defendant that the plaintiff

had been overpaid for the months of July to November 2002. In consequence, so it
was asserted by the defendant, the plaintiff was in fact indebted to it (the defendant).

[8] The plaintiff caused summons to be issued out of the Pretoria High Court for
payment of the sum of R 2 646 134.40 for what it alleged was the defendant's total
outstanding indebtedness to it for coal supplied and delivered to the latter for the
months of December 2002 and January 2003. In the alternative the plaintiff alleged
that the defendant had retained and utilised the full volume of coal that had been
delivered to it and it therefore had been enriched at the expense of the plaintiff in that
sum. However, the plaintiff deliberately chose not to pursue its claim based on
enrichment in the court a quo.

[9] The first of the various defences raised by the defendant in its plea and the
only one that I will in due course consider was the following: ‘Defendant pleads that
at no time did it resolve to vary the supply contract … as required by s 38(1) of the
Gauteng Rationalisation of Local Government Affairs Act 10 of 19981 (“the Act”) nor
did it comply with the formalities prescribed by s 38(3) of the Act at any stage’.  The
plaintiff replicated that the defendant was precluded by the doctrine of estoppel from
relying on s 38 of the Act. Patel J, who heard the matter, granted judgment in favour
of the plaintiff. This appeal is with his leave.

[10]  Section 38 of the Act provides:
‘Extending or varying a tender agreement

1 Rationalisation of Local Government Affairs Act 10 of 1998, PN 66, PG 550, 30 October 1998.

(1)
Subject to subsection (2), a municipal council on its own initiative or upon receipt of an
application from the person, body, organisation or corporation supplying goods or services to
the municipal council in terms of this Chapter, may resolve to extend or vary a tender
agreement if-

(a)
the circumstances as contemplated in section 35(2)(a) prevail; or

(b)
with due regard to administrative efficiency and effectiveness, the council deems

appropriate.

(2)
A municipal council may not extend or vary a tender agreement -

(a)
more than once;

(b)
for a period exceeding the duration of the original agreement; or

(c)
for an amount exceeding twenty (20) percent of the original tender value.

(3)
Within one month of the resolution referred to in subsection (1), the matters specified in
subsection (4) must be -

(a)
published by the municipal council at least in an appropriate newspaper circulating

within the boundaries of the municipality; and

(b)
displayed at a prominent place that is designed for that purpose by a municipal

council.

(4)
The matters to be published or displayed are -

(a)
the reasons for dispensing with the procedure specified in section 36;

(b)
a summary of the requirements of the goods or services; and

(c)
the details of the person, body, organisation or corporation supplying the goods or
services.

(5)
The functions of a municipal council in terms of this section may not be assigned nor
delegated.’

[11] It is important at the outset to distinguish between two separate, often
interwoven, yet distinctly different ‘categories’ of cases.  The distinction ought to be
clear enough conceptually.  And yet, as the present matter amply demonstrates, it is
not always truly discerned.   I am referring to the distinction between an act beyond
or in excess of the legal powers of a public authority (the first category), on the one
hand, and the irregular or informal exercise of power granted (the second category),
on the other. That broad distinction lies at the heart of the present appeal, for the
successful invocation of the doctrine of estopppel may depend upon it. (See T E
Dönges & L de van Winsen Municipal  Law 2ed (1953) pp 38 – 41.)

[12] In the second category, persons contracting in good faith with a statutory body
or its agents are not bound, in the absence of knowledge to the contrary, to enquire
whether the relevant internal arrangements or formalities have been satisfied, but

are entitled to assume that all the necessary arrangements or formalities have
indeed been complied with  (see for example National and Overseas Distributors
Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Potato Board 1958 (2) SA 473 (A);  Potchefstroom se
Stadsraad v Kotze 1960 (3) SA 616 (A)). Such persons may then rely on estoppel if
the defence raised is that the relevant internal arrangements or formalities were not
complied with.

[13] As to the first category:  failure by a statutory body to comply with provisions
which the legislature has prescribed for the validity of a specified transaction cannot
be remedied by estoppel because that would give validity to a transaction which is
unlawful and therefore ultra vires.  (See for example Strydom v Die Land- en
Landbou Bank van Suid-Afrika 1972 (1) SA 801 (A); Abrahamse v Connock's
Pension Fund 1963 (2) SA 76 (W) and Hauptfleisch v Caledon Divisional Council
1963 (4) SA 53 (C).)

[14] Patel J found in effect that this case fell into the second category. For the
reasons that follow I am in respectful disagreement with the learned judge. In the
present case, the defendant's legal capacity to amend the supply contract must be
sought in the provisions of the statute.  A resolution by the defendant's council was
prescribed by s 38(1) as a necessary prerequisite for amending or varying the supply
contract.  Absent such a resolution, any purported amendment by employees of the
defendant was plainly impermissible.  Moreover, s 38(5) specifically prohibited the
defendant's council from delegating or assigning those functions.  Here, of course,
we are dealing not merely with the form in which the statute requires a transaction to
be clothed, but with something more fundamental.  The statute expressly confers

sole power upon a specified entity, to the exclusion of any other person or entity, to
extend or vary an existing tender agreement. The linguistically plain meaning of the
section severely restricts the power (vires) to enter into a transaction of that kind to
the defendant's council.

[15] Section 217 of the Constitution requires contracts for services or goods by an
organ of state such as the defendant to accord with a system that is fair, transparent,
competitive and cost-effective. Against that backdrop, the mischief that s 38 of the
Act seeks to prevent is plain.  It is to eliminate nepotism, patronage, or worse, and to
entrust the council of the defendant with a sole power which is to be exercised
independently by it to achieve those ends.  If the conclusion of contracts were to be
permitted without any reference to the defendant's council and without any sanction
of invalidity, the very mischief which the legislation seeks to combat could be
perpetuated.

[16] There are formidable obstacles to the plaintiff’s reliance upon the doctrinal
device of estoppel.  Assuming in the plaintiff's favour that all of the requirements for
its successful invocation have been established, this is not a case in which it can be
allowed to operate.  It is settled law that a state of affairs prohibited by law in the
public interest cannot be perpetuated by reliance upon the doctrine of estoppel
(Trust Bank van Afrika Bpk v Eksteen 1964 (3) SA 402 (A) at 411H-412B), for to do
so would be to compel the defendant to do something that the statute does not allow
it to do.  In effect therefore it would be compelled to commit an illegality (Hoisain v
Town Clerk, Wynberg 1916 AD 236).

[17] The amending of the supply contract was at the instance of the defendant's
employees who were plainly not authorised to do so.  The defendant had thus not
acted in fact nor, for that matter, is it considered in law to have acted at all.  No
amendment of the supply contract had therefore occurred.  The effect of allowing
estoppel to operate would be to breathe life into that which has yet to come into
being. If the amendment were to be 'validated' by the operation of estoppel, the
defendant would be precluded from exercising the powers specifically conferred
upon it for the protection of the public interest.

[18] The fact that the plaintiff was misled into believing that the defendant's
employees were authorised to vary an agreement that had earlier been lawfully
concluded with it can hardly operate to deprive the defendant of that power which
had been bestowed upon it by the legislature.  To do so would be to deprive the ultra
vires doctrine of any meaningful effect.

[19] In finding for the plaintiff, Patel J held that the doctrine of estoppel could be
successfully invoked by it in this case.  To support this finding he called in aid the
judgment of Boruchowitz J in Eastern Metropolitan Substructure v Peter Klein
Investments (Pty) Ltd 2001 (4) SA 661 (W). In that case Boruchowitz J expressed
the view that the Constitution obliged him to reconsider the existing common law rule
which precludes the raising of an estoppel where its effect is to prevent or excuse
the performance of a statutory duty or discretion, although, as he put it (para 34):
'The difficulty, as I comprehend it, is not with the rule but with its application.  The rule itself does not
infringe any provision of the Bill of Rights, and is in conformity with the doctrine of legality implied in
the Constitution. . . .  As the facts of the present case amply demonstrate, the blanket application of

the rule may in certain instances run counter to a fundamental rights provision or value which
underpins the Constitution.'
Precisely which fundamental rights provision or constitutional value he had in mind,
the learned judge did not state.  Nor, for that matter, does this emerge with any
clarity from the judgment.  Boruchowitz J continued (para 40):
'What is required, in the present instance, is not a setting aside of the common-law rule but an
incremental change in its application, necessary to ensure that the underlying values and
constitutional objectives are achieved.  Instead of permitting a barrier to the raising of estoppel
against a public authority exercising public power, the common law should be developed to
emphasise the equitable nature of estoppel, and its function as a rule allocating the incidence of loss.'

[20] I accept, as did Boruchowitz J, that courts are enjoined to develop the
common law, if this is necessary. That power is derived from sections 8(3) and 173
of the Constitution. Section 39(2) of the Constitution makes it plain that, when a court
embarks upon a course of developing the common law, it is obliged to ‘promote the
spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights’ (S v Thebus 2003 (6) SA 505 (CC)
para 25). This ensures that the common law will evolve, within the framework of the
Constitution, consistently with the basic norms of the legal order that it establishes
(Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of South Africa; In re Ex parte President
of the Republic of South Africa 2000 (2) SA 674 (CC) para 49). The Constitutional
Court has already cautioned against overzealous judicial reform. Thus, if the
common law is to be developed, it must occur not only in a way that meets the s
39(2) objectives, but also in a way most appropriate for the development of the
common law within its own paradigm (Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security
2001 (4) SA 938 (CC) para 55).

[21] Faced with such a task, a court is obliged to undertake a two-stage enquiry.
First, it should ask itself whether, given the objectives of s 39(2), the existing
common law should be developed beyond existing precedent. If the answer to that
question is a negative one, that should be the end of the enquiry.  If not, the next
enquiry should be how the development should occur and which court should
embark on that exercise. (See S v Thebus para 26.)

[22] Had that exercise been undertaken by Boruchowitz J, the first enquiry would,
in my view, have yielded a negative response.  With respect to the learned judge, his
reasoning fails to draw the crucial distinction between the two categories to which I
have already alluded. The dicta of this court in Hoisain v Town Clerk, Wynberg, on
the one hand, and National and Overseas Distributors Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Potato
Board, on the other, exemplify that distinction. In Hoisain, Innes CJ stated (at 240):
'It is sought to compel the Town Clerk to place the applicant's name upon the statutory list; he
can only do that upon the grant of a certificate by the Council, which that body has definitely refused
to give.  Such a certificate is not in truth in existence.  So that the Court is asked to compel the Town
Clerk to do something which the Statute does not allow him to do; in other words we are asked to
force him to commit an illegality.  There can be no question of estoppel as far as he is concerned.  His
negligence cannot be a substitute for the Council's approval, nor can he by virtue of his mistake be
compelled to bring about a position which he has no power in law to create by his own free will.'
In Potato Board, Schreiner JA stated (at 48A-E):

'We were referred to the case of Hoisain v Town Clerk, Wynberg, 1916 A.D. 236, where a
town clerk had in error issued a certificate for the transfer of a business to the wrong person.  INNES,
C.J., at p. 240, dealt with an argument based on the rule in Royal British Bank v Turquand, 119 E.R.
474, and said that it had no application to such a situation as the one before the Court, which was
being asked to force the town clerk to commit an illegality by placing Hoisain's name on a statutory list
which could include only the names of persons to whom the council had granted certificates.  The
present is an entirely different kind of case.  For here although Mr. Rust had no right as against the

respondent to enter into a contract for the respondent which had not been approved by the Board
there was no illegality if in fact he did so.

The contract being one which the respondent could lawfully enter into and Mr. Rust having
been the proper person to make contracts when an approving resolution by the Board had been
passed, it seems to follow that so far as the outside world was concerned he bound the respondent
when he made a contract without such a resolution. (cf. S.A.I.F. Co-operative Society v Webber, 1922
T.P.D. 49).  The rule in  Royal British Bank v Turquand, supra, which was followed in Mine Workers'
Union v J.J. Prinsloo, 1948 (3) S.A. 831 (A.D.), applies and any mistake that may have occurred and
led to the appellant's tender being accepted without a supporting resolution by the Board could not
prejudice the appellant.  So far as it was concerned there was a properly made contract binding on
the respondent.'

[23] Boruchowitz J concluded (para 40) that:
‘ . . . the proper approach, consistent with s 39(2) is that the Court should balance the individual and
public interests at stake and decide on that basis whether the operation of estoppel should be allowed
in a specific case’.
That approach with respect to the learned judge is fallacious.  Estoppel cannot, as I
have already stated, be used in such a way as to give effect to what is not permitted
or recognised by law.  Invalidity must therefore follow uniformly as the consequence.
That consequence cannot vary from case to case. 'Such transactions are either all
invalid or all valid.  Their validity cannot depend upon whether or not harshness is
discernible in a particular case.' (per Marais JA in Eastern Cape Provincial
Government v Contractprops 25 (Pty) Ltd 2001 (4) SA 142 (SCA) para 9).
Boruchowitz J, I should perhaps add, sought support for his view in the judgment of
Laker Airways Ltd v Department of Trade [1997] 2 All ER 182 (CA), where Lord
Denning MR stated (at 194 D-F):

‘…It [the Crown] can, however, be estopped when it is not properly exercising its powers, but
misusing them; and it does misuse them if it exercises them in circumstances which work injustice or
unfairness to the individual without any countervailing benefit for the public:…’.
Significantly the view expressed by Lord Denning MR has subsequently been
overruled by the House of Lords in R v East Sussex County Council, ex parte
Reprotech (Pebsham) Ltd; Reprotech (Pebsham) Ltd v  East Sussex County Council
[2002] 4 All ER 58 para 35.

[24] With respect to Boruchowitz J, what he postulates is, in my view, the
antithesis of that demanded by the Constitution.  Section 173 of the Constitution
enjoins courts to develop the common law by taking into account the interests of
justice.  The approach advocated by the learned judge, if endorsed, would have the
effect of exempting courts from showing due deference to broad legislative authority,
permitting illegality to trump legality and rendering the ultra vires doctrine nugatory.
None of that would be in the interests of justice.  Nor, can it be said, would any of
that be sanctioned by the Constitution, which is based on the rule of law, and at the
heart of which lies the principle of legality.

[25] I accordingly can find no warrant for the approach postulated by Boruchowitz
J.  Neither, I must add, do I agree with the conclusion reached by him.  It follows that
on this aspect, Boruchowitz J was wrong, as indeed was the learned judge in the
present case. The appeal must therefore succeed. This result may well be perceived
to be an unpalatable one. It is, however, not so. For it must be remembered that
someone in the position of the plaintiff has, in principle, an enrichment action and will
thus not be entirely remediless. In this case, as I have already mentioned, the

plaintiff consciously elected at the trial not to pursue its enrichment claim. It must
therefore bear the consequences of that election.

[26] In the result:
(a)
The appeal succeeds with costs.
(b)
The judgment of the court a quo is altered to one of absolution from the
instance with costs.

V M PONNAN
JUDGE OF APPEAL

CONCUR:
HARMS ADP
FARLAM JA
LEWIS JA
MUSI AJA
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

MEDIA SUMMARY – JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

FROM

The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal

DATE

27 March 2007

STATUS

Immediate

Please note that the media summary is for the benefit of the media and does not form part of
the judgment.

CASE
CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICPALITY v RPM BRICKS (PTY) LTD
(Case No 177 / 06)

Media Statement

Today the Supreme Court of Appeal upheld an appeal by the City of Tshwane against a judgment of
the Pretoria High Court. The judgment of the High Court in the sum of R 2 646 134.40 in favour of the
respondent RPM Bricks was altered to one of absolution from the instance.

The respondent, a supplier of coal, had caused summons to be issued for payment for coal which had
been supplied and delivered to the appellant in consequence of a purported amendment to a supply
contract that had subsisted between the parties. The appellant, in its defence, contended that the
formalities prescribed for the varying of the supply contract by section 38 of the Gauteng
Rationalisation of Local Government Affairs Act 10 of 1998 had not been complied with. The
respondent asserted, in response, that the appellant was estopped from relying on s 38 of the Act to
avoid payment. The High Court agreed with the respondent.

On appeal the SCA held that a distinction had to be drawn between an act beyond or in excess of the
legal powers of a public authority on the one hand, and the irregular or informal exercise of power
granted on the other. According to the SCA, persons dealing with a statutory body are not bound,
when dealing in good faith with a statutory body, in the absence of knowledge to the contrary, to
enquire whether the relevant internal formalities of the statutory body had been satisfied. Accordingly,
in that situation estoppel could be successfully invoked. Where, however, a statutory body had failed
to comply with provisions which the legislature had prescribed for the validity of a specified
transaction, resort could not be had to estoppel for that would give validity to a transaction which is
unlawful and therefore ultra vires. It followed therefore that the High Court was wrong in its conclusion
that estoppel could be successful raised in this case. Accordingly, the appeal had to succeed.

--- ends ---