- Bezuidenhout v Mogale City Local Municipality (50913/13)  ZAGPPHC 5890.07 MB
1. The applicant and the respondent are involved in litigation, referred to as the “main application”, concerning compensation for damages and/or loss allegedly sustained by the applicant due to the diversion of a road. The main application has already been enrolled for hearing.
2. In the application before this Court, in terms of the provisions of Rule 28(4), the applicant applied for the amendment of his Notice of Motion in the main application. The respondent opposed the application.
3. In paragraph 1 of the Notice of Motion in the main application the applicant prays for an order that an arbitrator be appointed to determine the amount of compensation to be paid to the applicant in terms of section 67(4) of the Local Government Ordinance, No 17 of 1939.
4. The amendment now sought by the applicant reads as follows:
"In the alternative to paragraph 1 above, if it be held that the applicant's claim for compensation falls under section 26(1) of the Expropriation Act, 63 of 1975 ("the Expropriation Act") then, and in that event, it is declared that:
1A.1 the applicant is entitled to institute an action for payment of compensation under the provisions of the Expropriation Act;
1A.2 the amount of compensation is to be determined in accordance with the Expropriation Act"