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
>>
2013
>>
[2013] ZAGPPHC 239
|
|
Tasima (Pty) Ltd v Department of Transport and Others (44095/2012) [2013] ZAGPPHC 239 (12 August 2013)
NOT
REPORTABLE
IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT,
PRETORIA
(REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
Case
No: 44095/2012
DATE:12/08/2013
In
the matter between:
TASIMA
(PTY)
LIMITED
.......................................................................................
Applicant
and
THE
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORT
.............................................................
First
Respondent
THE
DIRECTOR GENERAL: DEPARTMENT
OF
TRANSPORT
..................................................................................................
Second
Respondent
THE
MINISTER OF
TRANSPORT
........................................................................
Third
Respondent
WERNER
EDUARD
KOEKEMOER
....................................................................
Fourth
Respondent
And
ROAD
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
(APPLICATION
TO
INTERVENE)
.........................................................................
Fifth
Respondent
DATE
JUDGMENT HANDED DOWN: 12 Augustus 2013
JUDGMENT
ON RULE 49 (11)
EBERSOHN
AJ
[1]
The applicant is Tasima (Pty) Ltd ("Tasima”)
[2]
The respondents are the Department of Transport (“DOT”),
the Director General, Department of Transport (DG), the
Minister of
Transport, Werner Eduard Koekemoer (Koekemoer) and Road Traffic
Management Corporation (RTMC).
[3]
In the main matter the court gave a judgment in favour of the
applicant against the respondents. The respondents applied for
leave
to appeal. This application was dismissed by this court.
[4]
The applicant also applied in terms of Rule 49 (11) of the Uniform
Rules for an order whilst an appeal may be pending or anticipated
to
put its order against the respondents into operation.
[5]
There is no reason why this application shall not be granted in view
of the clear case of the applicant on the merits. It is
also a proper
matter wherein the need to provide security by the applicant should
be dispensed with.
[6]
The following order is made:
1.
An order is granted in terms of prayers 1,2,3 and 4 of the notice of
motion.
P.Z.
EBERSOHN
ACTING
JUDGE Of THE HIGH COURT
For
the Applicant: Adv BE Leech SC
For
the Respondent: B Roux SC
Adv
JA Mohale