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
>>
2019
>>
[2019] ZAFSHC 49
|
|
Majakathata Long Distance Taxi Association and Another v MEC for Police Road and Transport, Free State Province and Others (5122/2017) [2019] ZAFSHC 49 (25 April 2019)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
FREE
STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Case number:
5122/2017
In
the matter between:
MAJAKATHATA
LONG DISTANCE
TAXI
ASSOCIATION
1
st
Applicant
MOHAHLAULA
TAXI ASSOCIATION
2
nd
Applicant
and
MEC
FOR POLICE ROAD AND TRANSPORT,
FREE
STATE
PROVINCE
1
st
Respondent
FREE
STATE PROVINCIAL REGULATOR
2
nd
Respondent
FREE
STATE TRANSPORT REGISTRAR
3
rd
Respondent
MATSEPES
INCORPORATED
4
th
Respondent
WELKOM
UNITED TAXI ASSOCIATION
5
th
Respondent
CORAM:
MATHEBULA, J
HEARD
ON:
25
APRIL 2019
REASONS
[1]
On 25 April 2019 I handed down the following order:-
“
1.
Case 4952/2018 and 5122/2017 are postponed to 18, 19 & 21 JUNE
2019.
2.
First and Second Applicant (1
st
and 2
nd
respondent in the main case) are ordered to bear the wasted costs
occasioned by the postponement, which costs shall include preparation
costs.”
Here are the reasons.
[2]
On 21 February 2019, my sister Chesiwe J granted and Order inter alia
referring the matter to the hearing
of oral evidence and
consolidating Case 5122/2017 and 4952/2018 in order to determine the
dispute between the parties. The consolidated
matter was postponed to
25 April 2019.
[3]
On the latter date approximately ten (10) minutes before hearing I
was handed a substantive
application for postponement. In
chambers and in court, counsel for the applicants (respondents in the
main case) informed
me that he only has instructions to argue an
application for a postponement. It became apparent that despite
the outcome
of the application, postponement was inevitable.
[4]
After intense discussions, the parties agreed that the matter be
postponed but could not meet each other
on the issue of costs. I
granted the costs in favour of the respondents (applicants in the
main case).
[5]
The granting of an application for postponement is simply an
indulgence that falls within
the discretion of the court. In this
matter, the applicants were not ready to proceed and relied on a
number of flimsy reasons
to try and force a postponement. One of the
reasons was that the order by Chesiwe J was ambiguous. I fail to
understand the contention
hereof. A period of two (2) months has
elapsed since the granting of the order and nothing was done about
its ambiguity (if any).
The next point was that the applicants
intended to appeal the order. I was not referred to any appeal
pending before this court.
The last one was that the applicants have
not made proper accommodation arrangements for the witnesses. Counsel
could not provide
any details in this regard. He was simply clutching
on straws.
[6]
This matter has been on the court roll for some time. The applicants
are clearly playing for
time and in the process are acting
unreasonably to delay the finalisation of this matter. I find it odd
that counsel can only be
briefed to argue an application for
postponement when it is known that it can be granted or refused. This
was designed to put the
respondents in the difficult position that in
the event it is not granted counsel will withdraw and the applicants
will be granted
their postponement in any event. It will be unfair,
unreasonable and obviously unjust that the respondents are out of
pocket because
of something that they did not play a role in it.
Given these considerations, I found it appropriate to order that the
applicants
must bear the wasted of costs.
MATHEBULA,
J
On
behalf of 1
st
& 2
nd
Applicant:
Adv. C Ploos
van Amstel
Instructed
by:
E G Cooper Majiedt
Inc.
Bloemfontein
On
behalf of
Respondent
1,2 & 3
:
Adv. A Williams
Instructed
by:
State Attorney
Bloemfontein
On
behalf of
Respondent
4 - 18
:
Mr M Khang
Instructed
by:
Mphafi Khang Attorney
Bloemfontein
/roosthuizen