KwaZulu-Natal security company boss Siyabonga Xulu — who claims the eThekwini municipality owes him R231m (plus interest) for services rendered — has lost his case in the Durban high court.
And he has been ordered to pay punitive costs, with judge Murray Pitman saying the application was irregular and unjustified and the ratepayers of eThekwini should not have to foot the bill for it.
The city submits [that] Nzuza did not have the power to enter into the alleged agreements because they involved expenditure that required a competitive bidding process.
— Judge Murray Pitman
Xulu, who owns Solbeth Protection Services, launched what was initially an “urgent” application in July 2025, seeking an order for the city to pay up for services his company rendered between October 2019 and October 2021.
He claimed he had a deal with former municipal manager Sipho Nzuza, which was then “verbally” extended after eight months because it was an “emergency”.
His company, he claimed, was brought in because there were threats against municipal leadership.
But, he says, while he was paid for his services from January to September 2019 — in terms of an “engagement letter” which he annexed to his application — from October 2019 and even up until June 2025, he had not been paid, in spite of his agreements with Nzuza and, latterly, municipal manager Bongumusa Mbhele.
The city raised several defences, including that the matter was not urgent, that it was incapable of being determined through affidavits given the dispute of facts, and that Xulu was not entitled to bring the application because he had already sued the city in a separate action in the Pietermaritzburg high court, which the city was opposing.
The city said Xulu had never provided proper proof of what services his company had rendered after the expiration of the eight-month fixed-term contract or whether he had provided any services at all.
It denied having any “valid” agreements with the company. With regard to the invoice to Mbhele, for just less than R900,000, the city said this was a private arrangement, and Mbhele, in any event, disputed the legitimacy and reasonableness of the invoice.
Generally, it argued that the invoices relied on were for “exorbitant amounts”, without any explanation as to how those amounts were calculated.
In his judgement handed down on Thursday, Pitman said the matter was not urgent. He agreed with the city’s advocate that it was an abuse of process and vexatious.
He said the invoices relied on by the company contained “sparse to non-existent” information and that the city had asked for details years ago, which had not been provided.
“The [city] as a repository of ratepayer monies, is obliged to carefully scrutinise all claims against it and only pay if the evidence establishes liability. It has scrutinised these extraordinarily large claims and disputes their basis and quantum,” Pitman said.
“Additionally, the city submits Nzuza did not have the power to enter into the alleged agreements because they involved expenditure that required a competitive bidding process.”
He dismissed the application and ordered costs on a punitive scale.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.