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
>>
2017
>>
[2017] ZAGPPHC 357
|
|
Department of Transport and Others v Tasima (Pty) Limited (44095/2012) [2017] ZAGPPHC 357 (24 April 2017)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA)
NOT REPORTABLE
NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES
NOT
REVISED
Case
Number: 44095/2012
In
the matter between:
THE
DE
PARTMENT OF
TRANSPORT
First
Applicant
THE
DIRE
CTOR-GENERAL: DEPARTMENT
OF
Second
Applicant
TRANSPORT
THE
MINISTER OF
TRANSPORT
Third
Applicant
WERNER
EDUARD
KOEKEMOER
Fourth
Applicant
ROAD
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION
Fifth
Applicant
COLLINS
LETSOALO
Sixth
Applicant
KEVIN
JOSHUA
KARA-VALA
Seventh
Applicant
MORN
GERBER
Eighth
Applicant
GILBERTO
MARTINS
Ninth
Applicant
CHRIS
HLABISA
Tenth
Applicant
MAKHOSINI
MSIBI
Eleventh
Applicant
and
TASIMA
(PTY)
LTD
Respondent
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
POTTERILL
J
[1]
The first, second, third, sixth, seventh, tenth and eleventh
applicants ("applicants·) are applying for leave to
appeal to the Full Bench against paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19
and 21 of the judgment and paragraphs 23.1, 23. 2 and 23.4 of
the
orders granted by this court.
[2]
In essence the appeal revolves around whether the applicants had to
perform in terms of the court orders up to the
"guillotine
date”
of 9 November 2016; date of the Constitutional Court
order or on 23 June 2015; the date of the granting of the counter
application
by Hughes J
[3]
I am unconvinced that another court will differ from this finding.
Both dates are relevant; 23 June 2015 is the date that the
parties
had no further contractual obligations. The 9
th
of
November 2016 is the date up to which all court orders must
constitutionally be complied with. I am satisfied that the majority
judgment of the Constitutional Court clearly distinguishes between
these two principles and that in this Judgment these principles
have
been adhered to.
[4] I ordered the approval of all PRQ's
and site sign-offs dated before 9 November 2016 within three (3) days
from the date of the
order. I am satisfied that another court will
not come to a different conclusion. On the papers the applicants
herein set out no
facts as to why these PRQ's and site sign-offs
could not be approved and was not correct. The correctness of the
PRQ's and site
sign-offs were thus not in dispute. Furthermore, all
the previous orders, also those made by agreement between the
parties, were
ordered on this basis without any problematic
consequences.
[5]
The application for leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed with
costs
_____________________
S.
POTTERILL
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
CASE
NO: 44095/2012
HEARD
ON: 20 April 2017
FOR
THE 1
ST
- 3
RD
,
6
TH
and 9
TH
APPLICANTS: ADV. J.A. MOTEPE SC
INSTRUCTED
BY: STATE ATTORNEY
FOR
THE S1" and 11th APPLICANTS: ADV. J.A. MOTEPE SC
INSTRUCTED
BY: Selepe Attorneys
FOR
THE RESPONDENT: ADV. A.E. FRANKLIN SC AND ADV. J.P. MCNALLY SC
INSTRUCTED
BY: Webber Wentzel Attorneys
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 24 April 2017