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
>>
2009
>>
[2009] ZAGPPHC 202
|
|
Kekaka v United Zebediela Taxi Association and Others (25131/2008) [2009] ZAGPPHC 202 (23 June 2009)
NOT REPORTABLE
IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT,
PRETORIA
(REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
CASE NUMBER: 25131/2008
DATE:23/06/2009
In the matter between:
L.A
KEKAKA
…...................................................................................
APPLICANT
and
UNITED ZEBEDIELA TAXI
ASSOCIATION
......................
1ST
RESPONDENT
CAPRICORN DISTRICT TAXI
ASSOCIATION
................
2nd
RESPONDENT
REGISTRATION OF DEPARTMENT OF ROADS
& TRANSPORT FOR LIMPOPO
PROVINCE
..................
3rd
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
[1] On 9 September 2008 I gave an
order, in the Urgent Court, in terms of prayer of the notice of
motion, and I ordered the first
respondent to pay the costs of me
application.
[2] The first respondent on 23
September 2008 filed a notice in terms of Rule 49(1 )(c) calling for
reasons for the order. This
request only came to my notice some
months later at a time when I was. due to serious illness, not able
to deal therewith.
[3] My reasons follow herewith.
[4] The applicant is a member of the
first respondent, a taxi association. According to the constitution
of the Association, the
object of the association is inter alia to
promote, advance and protect the interests of its members. It is also
recorded therein
that members are limited to four taxis in the area
of operation of the association. The applicant had two, and acquired
a third.
He applied for “permission" from the association
to operate it in the associations’ area of jurisdiction, or as
it was put in the papers to "place (he vehicle on-line".
[5] It is the applicant's case, in a
nutshell, that his application was not granted or that the granting
thereof was delayed inordinately.
[6] The first respondent contended
that the applicant's application had not complied with its
constitution because he did not submit
six months' bank statements
with his application. That “requirement” does not appear
from the constitution, but from
a "policy document, attached to
the answering affidavit. The deponent on behalf erroneously referred
to this document as the
correct constitution" which it is not,
[7] The constitution referred to by
the applicant does not authorise the issue of such a policy. I have
not been given any other
document which authorises such a policy
[8] I therefore hold that the first
respondent could not in law rely on such a requirement, i.e. that six
months’ bank statements
be submitted, and the dispute as to
whether or not it was done, is irrelevant.
[9] I therefore made an order in the
following terms:
“
1. That the first respondent be
ordered to allow vehicle bearing registration number Logodi L online
with the first respondent and
that the applicant be allowed to
operate said vehicle.
2. That the first respondent be
ordered to pay the costs of this application."
P. ELLIS
ACTING JUDGE OF THE COURT