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
>>
2018
>>
[2018] ZAFSHC 32
|
|
Kopane and Others v Great Bloemfontein Taxi Association (5335/2016) [2018] ZAFSHC 32 (29 March 2018)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
FREE
STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Reportable:
YES/NO
Of
Interest to other Judges: YES/NO
Circulate
to Magistrates: YES/NO
Case
number: 5335/2016
In
the matter between:
KOPANE
AND OTHERS
Applicants
&
OTHERS
and
THE
GREAT BLOEMFONTEIN TAXI
Respondent
ASSOCIATION
HEARD
ON:
26
FEBRUARY
DELIVERED
ON:
29 MARCH 2018
[1]
These proceedings concern an application for leave to appeal. On 12
October 2017, I struck off with costs an application for
an
interdict. The applicants were aggrieved. They decided to appeal
against the order. The respondents oppose the current application.
[2]
The current application for leave to appeal was made on 16 November
2017, the ten court days after the prescribed deadline.
It was
supposed to have been lodged by 2 November 2017 at the very latest -
Rule 49 (1)(b).
[3]
The applicants were mindful of their failure to meet the ten day
timeline. They, therefore, applied in terms of Rule 27(3) to
have
their lateness condoned. The respondents did not oppose the
interlocutory condonation application. Satisfied that good cause
had
been shown, I granted the condonation application
[4]
I subsequently proceeded to hear the present main application for
leave to appeal. The pivotal contention by the applicants,
on which
the current application is based, is that another court “will”
come to a different conclusion if leave
to appeal is granted.
The respondents disagreed. They contend that no other court “will”
conclude otherwise if the
leave to appeal is granted.
[5]
On the following grounds, Mr Snyman submitted that the proposition
contended for by the applicants was legally flawed and unmeritorious:
5.1 None of the
conclusions which the applicants now seek to advance were previously
raised in their application for a final
interdict;
5.2 They sought
declaration of rights as well as review of Process where virtually no
notice was given to any of the parties who
stood to be substantial
and adversely affected by the relief sougt
5.3 From the
affidavits filed, there appeared a clear dispute of fact on papers
which militated against the grant of a final
order .
5.4 The third
respondent no longer has authority in law to issue or to amend taxi
permits, not only at the time the application
was launched but never
had such authority from the very outset at the time the application
was launched.
5.5 The amended
taxi permits sought by the applicants and the taxi service providers
rights to operate as such are governed
by the new legal framework
since 8 December 2009. See the
National Land Transport Act, 5 of
2009
.
5.6 The relief sought by
the applicants was erroneously premised on the outdated law which has
since bean repealed.
[6]
In view of the abovr material considerations concerning procedural
defects or shortcomings of the main application for leave
to appeal,
I am of the firm opinion that no other court will come to a different
conclusion. That said, it follows that there is
no reasonable
prospect of success of appeal.
[7]
In the result, I make the following order;
7.1
The applicants are denied leave to appeal
7.2
The costs of the application shall be borne and paid By the
applicants
7.3
Such costs shall include the costs relative to the condonation
application.
_______________
MH
RAMPAI, J
On
behalf of the applicants:
Adv P.S Heymans
Instructed
by:
EG Cooper Majiedt
Inc
Bloemfontein
On
behalf of the respondent:
Adv C Snyman
Instructed
by:
Lovius Block Attorneys
Bloemfontein