City loses court case against Cell C over stadium damage
Cape Town stadium.
Image: City of Cape Town
THE City has lost its court bid to claim damages against Cell C over damage to the Cape Town stadium.
The Western Cape High Court ruled that the debt had prescribed, and the claim was dismissed with costs.
According to court papers, the issue dates back to 2015 when the City gave Cell C permission to access the stadium to install infrastructure for its customers.
Cell C had contracted Huawei to do the installation work.
'On November 18, 2015, the (City) discovered extensive damage to the external façade of the stadium which was caused by a metal panel which had dislodged from gridline 50 on level 6 of the stadium and which fell on or through the façade, damaging the same.
"At all material times it was (Cell C's) duty to ensure that the installation was done without any harm or damage to the stadium and inasmuch as the damage was caused by (Huawei), alternatively, the third, alternatively the fourth defendant's action, it remained the duty of (Cell C) to ensure that no damage was done to the stadium and it could not rid itself of this duty by appointing a contractor,' court papers read.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Ad loading
The City's main claim was against Cell C with an alternative claim against Huawei and the other sub-contractors separately, in the event that the court found that they were independent contractors and that Cell C could not be held liable for any of their actions.
However, both Cell C and Huawei invoked a special plea of prescription.
They argued that the cause of action arose on November 18, 2015 and that the summons instituting the proceedings was served on them after the three year prescription period.
'The (City's) claim would prescribe within a period of three years as it falls within the ambit of section 11(d) of the Prescription Act. In his opening statement counsel for (Cell C) submitted that the (City) sought to impose strict liability on it in terms of its pleaded case. This rendered the actual identity of the defendant / entity who caused the damage irrelevant. Furthermore, Cell C submitted that as the (City) discovered the loss on November 18, 2015 and served its summons on November 21, 2018, (the City's) claim against it had prescribed.'
Lawyers for Huawei argued that there were no grounds on which the City could succeed. An ICS service engineer for Huawei testified and that he was responsible for the network provision.
The engineer compiled a report on the day of the incident at the stadium. It was recorded that on November 18, 2015 the stadium management stated that the damage was caused by Huawei's contractors as they worked on location. The report contained Huawei's denial that they were responsible for the damage and concluded that there was no conclusive proof in respect of who was responsible for the damage.
A City employee testified that while he was aware of a theory that a cherrypicker from another company could have caused the damage, 'no one placed any credibility in the theory'.
He said that there was one of four entities (Cell C, Huawei and the other subcontractors) which could be liable for the damage and that he held a meeting with representatives of all four entities on November 18, 2015.
However, according to court papers, the employee never asked which contractor replaced the panel and who was responsible for supervising the work on level 6.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
17 hours ago
- The Citizen
Nzimande signs letter of intent in China to boost AI in SA
In October last year, Communications Minister Solly Malatsi said AI could be a game changer for South Africa. Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation Dr Blade Nzimande has signed a letter of intent with the aim of focusing on information and communication technologies with a specific emphasis on Artificial Intelligence (AI) research and innovation. Minister Nzimande recently led a delegation in a high-level engagement with Will Meng, CEO of Huawei South Africa, and executives at the company's headquarters in Shenzhen, China. China and South Africa Emphasising the importance of South Africa-China cooperation, Nzimande stated that 'the signing of this Letter of Intent further solidifies' the long-standing relationship between South Africa and China. 'Most fundamentally, this Letter of Intent gives much-needed impetus to the progressive agenda of building a global political and economic order that promotes the equitable development of countries, particularly from the Global South, and to contribute to the betterment of all humanity.' The strengthening of relations comes just days after a successful Belt and Road Science and Technology Conference in Chengdu, China, and following a highly productive bilateral meeting between Minister Nzimande and China's Minister of Science and Technology Yin Hejun, which included a Letter of Intent on AI. Picture: Department of Science, Technology and Innovation ALSO READ: Eskom launches AI chatbot 'Alfred' to expedite fault reporting AI a 'game changer' In October last year, Communications Minister Solly Malatsi said AI could be a game changer for South Africa. The opportunities inherent in the use of AI in Africa can be viewed from several perspectives, including the role it will play in bringing cutting-edge healthcare to more people, especially those who previously did not have access to these. AI's role also extends to advancing food security, addressing environmental and climate-related challenges that affect agricultural productivity and livelihoods, and potentially helping to power economic growth. Ethical use Malatsi said AI is unavoidable, and South Africa should not be lagging. 'It's unavoidable in terms of AI, just in terms of the global impact it's making, and also the fact that this is where the presence of technology is, and I think we need to embrace it'. Malatsi said the key issue is the ethical use of AI. ALSO READ: AI agents to enhance interaction with computers, Microsoft says
IOL News
a day ago
- IOL News
City loses court case against Cell C over stadium damage
Cape Town stadium. Image: City of Cape Town THE City has lost its court bid to claim damages against Cell C over damage to the Cape Town stadium. The Western Cape High Court ruled that the debt had prescribed, and the claim was dismissed with costs. According to court papers, the issue dates back to 2015 when the City gave Cell C permission to access the stadium to install infrastructure for its customers. Cell C had contracted Huawei to do the installation work. 'On November 18, 2015, the (City) discovered extensive damage to the external façade of the stadium which was caused by a metal panel which had dislodged from gridline 50 on level 6 of the stadium and which fell on or through the façade, damaging the same. "At all material times it was (Cell C's) duty to ensure that the installation was done without any harm or damage to the stadium and inasmuch as the damage was caused by (Huawei), alternatively, the third, alternatively the fourth defendant's action, it remained the duty of (Cell C) to ensure that no damage was done to the stadium and it could not rid itself of this duty by appointing a contractor,' court papers read. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading The City's main claim was against Cell C with an alternative claim against Huawei and the other sub-contractors separately, in the event that the court found that they were independent contractors and that Cell C could not be held liable for any of their actions. However, both Cell C and Huawei invoked a special plea of prescription. They argued that the cause of action arose on November 18, 2015 and that the summons instituting the proceedings was served on them after the three year prescription period. 'The (City's) claim would prescribe within a period of three years as it falls within the ambit of section 11(d) of the Prescription Act. In his opening statement counsel for (Cell C) submitted that the (City) sought to impose strict liability on it in terms of its pleaded case. This rendered the actual identity of the defendant / entity who caused the damage irrelevant. Furthermore, Cell C submitted that as the (City) discovered the loss on November 18, 2015 and served its summons on November 21, 2018, (the City's) claim against it had prescribed.' Lawyers for Huawei argued that there were no grounds on which the City could succeed. An ICS service engineer for Huawei testified and that he was responsible for the network provision. The engineer compiled a report on the day of the incident at the stadium. It was recorded that on November 18, 2015 the stadium management stated that the damage was caused by Huawei's contractors as they worked on location. The report contained Huawei's denial that they were responsible for the damage and concluded that there was no conclusive proof in respect of who was responsible for the damage. A City employee testified that while he was aware of a theory that a cherrypicker from another company could have caused the damage, 'no one placed any credibility in the theory'. He said that there was one of four entities (Cell C, Huawei and the other subcontractors) which could be liable for the damage and that he held a meeting with representatives of all four entities on November 18, 2015. However, according to court papers, the employee never asked which contractor replaced the panel and who was responsible for supervising the work on level 6.
IOL News
a day ago
- IOL News
eThekwini Municipality's legal challenges: Officials clarify the impact of recent court rulings
eThekwini Municipality's head of Legal, Malusi Mhlongo and municipal manager Musa Mbhele at a media briefing held on Thursday on recent court judgments against the City. Image: Doctor Ngcobo / Independent Newspapers An official who issued an illegal instruction to offer a settlement to a service provider, which has subsequently resulted in the eThekwini Municipality having to pay R53 million, will be dealt with. This was said by senior municipal officials who were at a media briefing held yesterday by the City, which was aimed at dispelling concerns about the mismanagement of ratepayers' money through fruitless litigation. The officials also defended city manager Musa Mbhele. They asserted that he is being unfairly maligned when the cases predate his term, emphasising that he has acted with integrity and has the full authority and support of the council. The City's Head of Legal, Malusi Mhlongo, discussed various legal cases involving the municipality. One significant case was the dispute between the City and Daily Double Trading. Recently, the Constitutional Court concluded the matter by denying the City the right to appeal an earlier judgment that found in favour of the company. At issue in the court case was a settlement agreement that the municipality entered into years ago after being sued by the service provider. The City contends that the agreement was illegal because the official who authorised the settlement lacked the necessary authority. While the company initially claimed R30 million, the total has now escalated to R53 million, including accumulated interest. Mhlongo stated, 'We are in the process of complying with the order. As soon as the judgment from the Constitutional Court was issued, we instructed the representatives of the company to produce an invoice.' He added that action was initiated on the first day following the judgment, and the payment process is now underway. When questioned about the role of the city's lawyer who entered into this arrangement, Mhlongo clarified that it was a city official who provided an illegitimate instruction for the settlement agreement without the power to do so. 'With the records available, the identity of the person who gave the instruction has become known, but I am not at liberty to publish his or her name at the moment because it is a matter that is still under discussion,' he said. It was not immediately clear how long the City has known the identity of this person and the exact nature of the discussions that are taking place. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading The City also dismissed any suggestion that it failed to put up its case in court, stating that it provided evidence through affidavits rather than via individuals who were summoned to testify. Mhlongo also addressed two other cases. He revealed that on Wednesday, another judgment went against the City concerning the rental of a marquee from a company called Bless Joe Trading. The City had been renting a marquee to accommodate displaced individuals at a cost of R208,000 per day, which was intended to last for only 14 days but ended up remaining for over a year. The owner of the marquee is now demanding close to R73 million from the City. Mhlongo clarified, 'The judgment stated that we must pay for a year at market-related prices. 'The R208,000 a day was unaffordable, so even if we have to pay R50,000 as a market-related price, that is still a saving compared to R208,000 per day. Therefore, the judgment is not for R73 million.' Additionally, Mhlongo mentioned another case involving a company where it was reported that R500 million was being claimed from the City. He stated that the claim they are aware of from the company is for approximately R41 million. Following the departure of Sipho Nzuza as city manager, the service provider approached the municipality, claiming to have conducted intelligence work on behalf of the municipality. However, the service provider could not provide a contract or evidence of the work performed, stating that it was too sensitive. Mhlongo said, 'We cannot just give money to a service provider when we do not know what work they have done; we could be implicated in having paid our friends, and we advised him to sue. That way, he can present his evidence in court, ensuring a transparent process.' He said the company did take the matter to court and they were now waiting for a court date, adding, in the meantime, they have been bombarded with letters from politicians and the media (about the matter). Mhlongo asserted that it is improper for critics to label court losses as wasteful expenditure. He stated, 'We are defending ratepayers' money, and such actions can never be construed as wasteful.' Mbhele expressed his commitment to defending the interests of ratepayers. He said a few court rulings against the City were being used to paint it in a negative light, adding that the municipality had won the majority of the cases brought against it. THE MERCURY
