About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2010
>>
[2010] ZAGPPHC 205
|
|
Boseka Boeja Taxi Association v Registrar of Transport (Gauteng Province) and Others (53932/2008) [2010] ZAGPPHC 205 (30 November 2010)
NOT
REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
AFRICA
(NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT,
PRETORIA)
CASE
NO: 53932/2008
DATE:
30/11/2010
IN
THE MATTER BETWEEN:
BOSEKA
BOEJA TAXI
ASSOCIATION
..............................................................
APPLICANT
AND
THE
REGISTRAR OF TRANSPORT (GAUTENG PROVINCE)
.............
FIRST
RESPONDENT
THE
REGISTRAR OF TRANSPORT (LIMPOPO PROVINCE)
..............
SECOND
RESPONDENT
MASEMOLA
TAXI
ASSOCIATION
.....................................................................
THIRD
RESPONDENT
SEPHEU
MV
...................................................................................................................
FOURTH
RESPONDENT
SEFOKA
MAKUWE
ADAM
....................................................................................
FIFTH
RESPONDENT
NCHABELENG
DITEDI
MAXWELL.
................................................................
SIXTH
RESPONDENT
TLADI
FRANS
…..........................................................................................
SEVENTH
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
KOLLAPEN,
AJ
(1) This is an application
involving a dispute between the applicant and the third respondent.
Both the applicant and the third
respondent are taxi associations
whose members operate the route between Denneboom Taxi Rank and
Ga-Masemola hereinafter referred
to as the Masemola route.
(2) There
appears to be a long history with regard to the rights of the
respective members of the applicant and the third respondent
but it
was not in dispute that following the issuing of operating licences
by the first and the second respondents that members
of both
associations do indeed have certain rights in respect of the
Ga-Masemola route but that there are areas of uncertainty
with regard
to quantifying and determining an accurate list of such holders of
operating licences.
(3) A
further dispute identified by the parties related to the use of rank
space, the employment of queue Rankmasters and the
modus
operandi
to be utilised with regard to the loading of passengers. It appears
that various systems of loading of passengers are used in
the taxi
industry. On the one hand there is the board system which operates
on the basis of what may be commonly referred to as
a first come
first serve basis. Taxi’s arriving at the rank have their
names recorded on a board and are given preference
in accordance with
their ranking on the board. On the other hand where more than one
association has use of the same route and
the same rank and where
their numbers appear to be equal in strength resort is had to a one
on one system of loading which in effect
means that every alternate
load is allocated to each taxi association resulting in some broad
equity with regard to the loading
process. In addition and in
argument before the court it also appeared possible that where
numbers of operating licences do not
appear to be in equal strength
to each other in respect of the respective associations a system
could be adopted that is equivalent
to ensuring a proportionate
allocation of loads. Conveniently this could be termed a one-two
basis or a one-three basis depending
of course on the quantification
and the numbers involved.
(4) When this matter came
before my brother Prinsloo J in February 2009 he directed that the
first and second respondents respectfully
prepare a joint report in
respect of some of the disputes that emerged between the applicant
and the third respondent. Pursuant
to such an order a report was
indeed submitted by the first and second respondent and while the
applicant has raised certain concerns
with such a report it is
evident that the report while helpful may not have addressed all of
the issues which lie at the heart
of the dispute between the parties.
(5) During the course of
argument applicants presented a draft order which in their view
provided a basis on which certain of the
issues in dispute could be
resolved but also provided for the preparation of a further report by
the first and second respondents
to deal with some outstanding
issues.
(6) It
appeared that the third respondent was in broad agreement with most
of the provisions of the draft order and the court was
requested to
only rule on those aspects of the draft order which were not common
cause between the parties.
(7) As I understand it, it
relates to paragraph 4 of the draft order which provides that the
loading of passengers at both the Denneboom
and Ga-Masemola rank will
be on a one to one basis pending the issuing of a joint report of the
first and second respondents.
It was argued on behalf of the third
respondent that given that there was not clarity in numbers with
regard to the members of
the respective associations the loading
should be on a one-three basis in favour of the third respondent.
Having regard to in
broad terms the fact that the members of the
applicant constitute about one third of the members of the third
respondent it may
be just and appropriate to require the loading of
passengers as provided for in paragraph 4 of the order to be on a
one-two basis
in favour of the third respondent.
(8) The
third respondent also took issue with that portion of the order in
particular paragraphs 11.5 and 11.6 which directed them
to take
reasonable steps to ensure that their members will sue the Denneboom
Taxi Rank do not contravene the terms of the operating
licences. In
addition paragraph 11.6 directs the third respondent to ensure that
its members do not use any unauthorised or unlawful
ranks or taxi
ranks in the Masemola village.
Given the nature of the
relief sought in these paragraphs, of the draft order it seeks no
more than to ensure that the legality
under which the operating
licences are issued is adhered to. There can hardly be any
principled objection to the inclusion of
such relief and that if
given effect to it may go a long way towards ensuring greater
compliance by all those who are in possession
of operating licences.
I am inclined to retain those aspects of the relief sought.
(9) That being the case the
only other outstanding issue is the issue of costs. It appears from
the papers that the third respondent
took the stance that members of
the applicant who were in possession of valid operating licences were
not entitled to use the Ga-Masemola
route. In this regard letters
from the third respondent to the applicant dated 19 March 2008 and 21
July 2008 make it abundantly
clear that the stance adopted by the
third respondent was that even those in possession of valid operating
licences who crossed
the floor from the third respondent to the
applicant would not be allowed to load passengers on the Masemola
Route.
This stance and the
interference by members of the third respondent in the activities of
the applicant prompted the launch of this
applicant and under those
circumstances I believe that the applicant would be entitled to its
costs in respect of the application.
I accordingly would make the
draft order as amended in the following respects an order of court.
(a) Paragraph
4 of the draft order is to read: “The loading of passengers at
the Denneboom Taxi Rank as well as the Ga-Masemola
Taxi Rank will be
on a one-two basis in favour of the third respondent pending the
issuing of the joint report of the first and
second respondents
referred to hereunder.”
(b) The
date of “22 Oct 2010” in paragraph 6 of the draft is
replaced by “21 January 2011”.
(c) The
date of “5 Nov 2010” in paragraph 7 is replaced by “25
February 2011”.
(d) The
3
rd
Respondent is ordered to pay the Applicant’s costs.
(e) In
order to avoid any misunderstanding or misinterpretation, the draft
order duly amended is appended hereto.
_______________________________
KOLLAPEN
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
FOR
THE APPLICANT:
INSTRUCTED
BY:
FOR
THE RESPONDENTS:
INSTRUCTED
BY: