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
>>
2016
>>
[2016] ZAGPPHC 62
|
|
Mogabudima Transport Services CC and Others v Gauteng Provincial Regulatory Entity and Others (23846/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 62 (28 January 2016)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
28/01/2016
CASE NO:
23846/2014
NOT REPORTABLE
NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES
In the matter between:
MOGABUDIMA TRANSPORT SERVICES CC SE
MOGOWE 1
st
Applicant
J
MOGOWE 2
nd
Applicant
ME
NCHABELENG 3
rd
Applicant
JM
SEPHEU 4
th
Applicant
MP
NCHABELENG 5
th
Applicant
GJ
MTHOBENI 6
th
Applicant
MF
NTSOANE 7
th
Applicant
SD
RANALA 8
th
Applicant
OL
MOTAU 9
th
Applicant
RS
SELLO 10
th
Applicant
ME
LEPELLE 11
th
Applicant
KT
CHOMA 12
th
Applicant
MJ
KGATUKE 13
th
Applicant
MB
PHASHA 14
th
Applicant
And
THE GAUTENG PROVINCIAL REGULATORY
ENTITY 1
st
Respondent
THE LIMPOPO PROVINCIAL REGULATORY
ENTITY 2
nd
Respondent
THE REGISTRAR OF TRANSPORT,
GAUTENG
PROVINCE 3
rd
Respondent
THE REGISTRAR OF TRANSPORT,
LIMPOPO
PROVINCE 4
th
Respondent
BOSEKA BOEJA TAXI
ASSOCIATION 5
th
Respondent
MASEMOLA TAXI
ASSOCIATION 6
th
Respondent
MV
SEPHEU 7th
Respondent
SEFOKA MAKUWE
ADAM 8
th
Respondent
NCHABELENG DITEDI
MAXWELL 9
th
Respondent
TLADI
FRANS 10
th
Respondent
MA
MOKGWADI 11
th
Respondent
JUDGMENT
MALI AJ
[1] This is an application for an
order to rescind, alternatively to declare void and unenforceable the
verdict issued by the third
and fourth respondents on 18 July 2012.
The application further seeks the following:
1.1. an order directing the third
respondent to reinstate the First applicants as members of the fifth
respondent; and
1.2. an order directing the third
respondent to reinstate the applicants as members of the fifth
respondent and to renew their permits
which they were entitled to as
members of the fifth respondent.
[2] There was no appearance on behalf
of all the applicants. I am satisfied that the notice of set down was
served upon the applicants
on 12 October 2015.
[3] Counsel, Mr Gwarha appeared on
behalf of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents. Counsel, Mr Morare
appeared on behalf of 5th
and 11th respondent.
[4] There was no appearance on behalf
of 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and the 10th respondent.
[5] Having heard Counsel the
application is dismissed with costs.
5.1 Applicants are ordered to pay
costs of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th 5th and 11th respondents on attorney and
client scale.
______________________________
MALI AJ ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
Counsel for the Applicants: Instructed
by:
No appearance No appearance
Counsel for 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th
Respondents: MR
GWARHU
Counsel for 5 and 11 th
Respondents: RAMUSHU
MORARE INC.
Date of Hearing: 14 October 2015
Date of Judgment: 29 January 2016