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
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAFSHC 250
|
|
Welkom United Taxi Association and Others v Majakathata Long Distance Taxi Association and Others (5348/2021) [2024] ZAFSHC 250 (20 August 2024)
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA,
FREE STATE
DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Reportable:
NO
Of Interest to other
Judges: NO
Circulate to
Magistrates: NO
Case
No: 5348/2021
In
the matter between:
WELKOM
UNITED TAXI ASSOCIATION
1
st
Applicant
TSUKULU
JOEL MATLATSA
2
nd
Applicant
KGATELOPELE
TAXI ASSOCIATION
3
rd
Applicant
and
MAJAKATHATA
LONG DISTANCE TAXI ASSOCIATION
1
st
Respondent
(ODENDAALSRUS
MAJAKATHATA LONG DISTANCE
TAXI
ASSOCIATION)
MOHAHLAULA
TAXI ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS
2
nd
Respondent
(ODENDAALSRUS)
MEC:
DEPARTMENT OF POLICE, ROADS, AND
3
rd
Respondent
TRANSPORT
AND OTHERS
FREE
STATE PROVINCIAL REGULATORY AUTHORITY
4
th
Respondent
FREE
STATE TRANSPORT REGISTRAR
5
th
Respondent
MATJHABENG
LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
6
th
Respondent
HEARD
ON:
Matter disposed of without oral
hearing in terms of section19(a) of the Superior Court Act 10 of
2013.
JUDGMENT
BY
:
MHLAMBI, J
DELIVERED
ON:
20
AUGUST 2024
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
APPEAL
[1] On
30 October 2023, I granted prohibitory and mandatory interdicts
against the respondents and an order that
the first and second
respondents pay the costs of the application, jointly severally the
one paying the other to be absolved. It
these orders that the first
respondent is appealing against.
[2] The
grounds of appeal are stated as follows in the notice of application
for leave to appeal:
2.1 The learned judge
erred in granting the interdict sought as no court can grant an
interdict on the event or incident (alleged
or otherwise) that has
already taken place.
2.2 The learned judge
erred in granting the orders sought by the applicant when the
applicants have dismally failed to indicate
to court when did the
alleged unlawful acts occur.
2.3 The learned judge
erred in failing to apply the elementary principles in our
jurisprudence; the applicant stands and falls on
its founding papers.
2.1 Learned judge erred
in finding that the applicants operated legally with ad hoc licenses
in terms of the Free State Transport
Act.
2.5 The learned judge
erred in applying the basic tenets of
Plascon-Evans.
Upon the
judge rejecting the admission of the applicant’s replying
affidavit, the judge ought to have applied the principle
set out in
Plascon-Evans
.
2.6 The learned judge
erred and failed to properly deal with the evidence placed before him
in arriving at the correct decision.
2.7 The judge erred in
finding that the respondent tendered bare denials in respect of the
alleged “
serious allegations”
or wrong doing
allegedly perpetrated by its members.
2.8 The judgment and
orders granted by the court are with respect incongruent, bad in law
and fact as they cannot be implemented
consistent with the doctrine
of effectiveness.
2.9 First respondent
hereby reserves that right to file further grounds of appeal as and
when a need to do so arises.
[3] The
appeal is predicated on section 17(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior
Courts Act which provides that leave
to appeal may only be given
where the judge or judges concerned are of the opinion that the
appeal would have a reasonable prospect
of success or that there is
some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard,
including conflicting judgments on the
matter under consideration.
[4] The
application for leave to appeal is not opposed and the first
respondent filed its heads of argument. Save
for rehashing the
grounds of appeal as contained in the notice of motion, the first
respondent stated in its heads of argument
that the law provides for
prohibitory and mandatory interdicts and any applicant who approached
the court seeking to interdict
another was duty bound to satisfy the
requirement as set out in Uniform Rule 6(12), an elementary principle
that the court overlooked.
Furthermore, the court erred in mulcting
with costs the uncited members of the first respondent without
establishing their identities.
The said members of the first
respondent were not even before the court.
[5] It
would appear from the first respondent’s heads of argument that
interdictory relief can only be granted
by way of employing the
provisions of Uniform Rule 6(12). This argument is misplaced as the
said rule applies to urgent applications,
allowing for deviation from
normal court rules and time lines when urgency is demonstrated.
Interdicts can be sought though normal
court applications and are not
restricted to urgent ones under Rule 6(12). I have considered the
applicant’s grounds of appeal
as well as the heads of argument
and am not persuaded that the issues raised therein have substance
and that the appeal has any
reasonable prospect of success. In the
main judgment I comprehensively set out the reasons for my
conclusions which dealt with
most of the grounds of appeal raised. It
is unnecessary to repeat the same reasoning here.
[6] In
the result the following order is made:
Order:
The application for leave
to appeal is dismissed.
MHLAMBI, J
On
behalf of the Applicant:
Adv.
PS Mphulwane
Instructed
by:
Maqoma
Attorneys
119
St Andrews Street
Bloemfontein
On
behalf of the respondent:
Adv.
S Sethene
Instructed
by:
EG
Cooper Inc.
17
Third Street
Westdene
Bloemfontein