About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2022
>>
[2022] ZAFSHC 209
|
|
Highway Junction (Pty) Ltd and Others v Di-Thabeng Truck and Taxi (Pty) Ltd and Others (5821/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 209 (25 August 2022)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
AFRICA
FREE STATE DIVISION,
BLOEMFONTEIN
Case No:
5821/2021
Reportable:
YES/NO
Of Interest to other Judges: YES/NO
Circulate to Magistrates:
YES/NO
In the matter between:
HIGHWAY
JUNCTION (PTY) LTD
First
Applicant
SWINBURNE VILLAGE HOME OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
NPC
Second
Applicant
SWINBURNE
STORE CC
Third
Applicant
and
DI-THABENG
TRUCK AND TAXI (PTY) LTD
First
Respondent
DI-THABENG
LOGISTICS (PTY)
LTD
Second
Respondent
DI-THABENG
FINANCE (PTY) LTD
Third
Respondent
DI-THABENG
FUEL SUPPLY (PTY) LTD
Fourth
Respondent
DI-THABENG
FUEL MANAGEMENT (PTY) LTD
Fifth
Respondent
MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL,
FREE STATE
PROVINCIAL DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC,
SMALL
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, TOURISM AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
AFFAIRS
Sixth
Respondent
MALUTI-A-PHOFUNG
LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Seventh
Respondent
THE MINISTER OF WATER
AND
SANITATION
Eighth
Respondent
THE MINISTER OF MINERAL RESOURCES
AND
ENERGY
Ninth Respondent
THE
CONTROLLER OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
Tenth
Respondent
CORAM:
ZIETSMAN
P, AJ
DELIVERED
ON:
25
AUGUST 2022
This
judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties’ representatives by email. The date and time for
hand-down is deemed to be 15:00 on 25 August 2022
[1]
In the aforementioned matter, I delivered judgment on
27 July 2022
by issuing an order against the First to Fifth Respondents as
follows:
“
1.
The First to Fifth Respondents are interdicted and/or restrained from
using the property, known as Portion
[….] of the Farm
Franshoek No [….], S[....], Free State Province, for any uses
other than agricultural, and the parking
of trucks, until:
1.1
the use of the land had been changed
in terms of the provisions of the
Spatial Planning and Land Use
Management Act, 16 of 2013
and/or the Municipal Planning By-law of
2015 read with the Town Planning Scheme 51969.
2.
Each party to pay its own costs.”
[2]
Both the original Applicants as well as the original First to Fifth
Respondents filed
applications for leave to appeal:
2.1
The original Applicants against the refusal
of further interdictory relief that they sought;
2.2
The First to Fifth Respondents against the
order that I did issue as referred to above.
[3]
Mindful of the test in applications for leave to appeal, that a
reasonable possibility
exists that another Court would come to
another decision, and mindful of the fact that I have attached
various interpretations
to regulatory / legislative enactments, I am
of the view that I should grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court
of Appeal, in
the matter concerned, and that the aforementioned
appeal needs the attention of the Supreme Court of Appeal.
I
THEREFORE MAKE THE FOLLOWING ORDER
:
1.
Leave to appeal against the whole of the
judgment is granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal;
2.
The First to Fifth Respondents’
application is to be regarded as the main appeal and the original
Applicants’ appeal
as the cross-appeal;
3.
Costs of the application for leave to
appeal will be costs in the appeal.
P ZIETSMAN, AJ
On behalf of the Applicants:
Adv
HJ De Waal SC
Adv JS Rautenbach
Instructed by:
Phatshoane
Henney Inc.
35 Markgraaff
Street
Bloemfontein
E-mail:
law@phinc.co.za
On behalf of the Respondents:
Adv
MM Rip SC
Adv L Kotze
Instructed by:
Graham
Attorneys
14A Torbet Street
Noordhoek
Bloemfontein
E-mail:
vanessa@grahamattorneys.co.za