Row over Knysna fires in 2017 flares up again

KNYSNA NEWS - The question of who is liable to pay for damage suffered by property owners during the devastating Knysna fires in 2017 has reignited - this time in a legal application in the Western Cape High Court.

Knysna Municipality asked the court that before the main application - a R17m damages claim from 19 property owners - be considered, the court should consider whether Knysna Municipality was misjoined.

This legal term refers to the incorrect joining of parties or claims in a legal action and means one of the parties has been improperly included in a lawsuit or criminal case.

Misjoinder

If the municipality's plea of misjoinder is successful, the claim against Knysna Municipality will fall away.

As judge Melanie Holderness said in her judgment delivered on 29 April: "If the defendant (Knysna Municipality) is ultimately successful with its plea of misjoinder, this will be dispositive of the plaintiffs' claim against it."

The municipality argued that the misjoinder means the responsibility to attend to the fires in 2017, which reignited in the Elandskraal area, was vested in the Garden Route District Municipality (then Eden District Municipality) and not Knysna Municipality.

Another special plea was that the Eden District Municipality has a "direct and substantial interest in the matter and should be joined as a defendant in the action (the non-joinder plea)".

Successful

Holderness agreed that the municipality was successful in its application and granted an order that Knysna Municipality's first special plea and second special plea "shall be determined first and separately from any other questions for decision in this action".

This means that all other questions for decision in this action have to be stayed until these two special pleas have been disposed of.

She said a central issue that bears relevance to both the non-joinder and the misjoinder pleas is which organ of state, and more particularly which specific municipality, bears the legal duties the plaintiffs rely on.

"I agree with counsel for the defendant (Knysna Municipality) that this is an issue which is plainly separable from the other issues which the court will be called upon to determine. The issue of whether Eden Municipality should properly have been joined as a defendant should be determined before the matter proceeds on the merits."

Fair and convenient

Holderness said that, in the circumstances, she was satisfied that the issues raised in the special plea are not inextricably intermingled with the remaining issues for determination.

She was also satisfied that "a proper case has been made out for a separation adjudication of the discrete issues raised [in the] special plea of non-joinder and misjoinder, and that it would be both fair and convenient for these issues to be decided first and at a separated hearing."

She awarded costs to the municipality.

Previous articles:

‘We bring you the latest Garden Route, Hessequa, Karoo news’