REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG


CASE NUMBER: 2025-017039


DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE

1.REPORTABLE: NO
2.OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
3.REVISED: NO

08 AUGUST 2025 Judge Dippenaar



In the matter between:



WITWATERSRAND AFRICAN TAXI OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
APPLICANT

And

THE GAUTENG PROVINCIAL REGULATORY
ENTITY
FIRST RESPONDENT

NANCEFIELD DUBE WEST TAXI OWNERS
ASSOCIATION
SECOND RESPONDENT

THE MEC FOR ROADS AND TRANSPORT
GAUTENG PROVINCE
THIRD RESPONDENT

Page 2


THE MINISTER FOR THE EXECUTIVE
COUNCIL FOR ROADS AND TRANSPORT
FOURTH RESPONDENT

THE GAUTENG NATIONAL TAXI ALLIANCE FIFTH RESPONDENT


THE SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL TAXI
COUNCIL
SIXTH RESPONDENT

CITY OF JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN
MUNICIPALITY
SEVENTH RESPONDENT

THE SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES EIGHTH RESPONDENT

MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL FOR
GAUTENG DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
SERVICE
NINTH RESPONDENT


JUDGMENT

Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’
legal representatives by e-mail and uploading it onto the electronic platform.
The date and time for hand -down is deemed to be the 08th of AUGUST
2025.


DIPPENAAR J:

[1] The second respondent, NANDUWE, seeks by way of urgent application, orders
compelling the first respondent to implement its decision of 16 January 2025 with
immediate effect and declaring that the interim order granted by Wilson J on 3 March
2025 has lapsed, together with ancillary relief. At the hearing, the second respondent also
sought a spoliation order, despite this not forming part of its notice of motion.

Page 3

[2] The application is yet another chapter in the long saga of litigation between the
parties. Relevant to the present context, the order of Wilson J granted an interim interdict
pending an appeal or a review application to be launched by the Applicant, WATA, within
10 days of the first respondent providing reasons for its decision of 16 January 2025.
[3] The second respondent’s case is that the Wilson J order has lapsed as the
applicant did not launch its review application within 10 days of the first respondent
providing its reasons. For urgency, it relies on certain events which transpired during the
period 21 to 23 July 2025. However, no relief was sought in relation to those events in
the second respondent’s founding papers. The applicant’s case on the other hand is that
the application is doomed to failure, inter alia as a condonation application and the review
are pending. It is common cause that the review application was launched, together with
a condonation application after service of the second respondent’s present application on
it.
[4] The applicant seeks dismissal of the present application on the basis that it lacks
urgency, seeks to subvert existing court orders, bypass the court ordered arbitration
process between the parties and fails to establish the necessary requirements for final
relief. The first respond ent delivered an explanatory affidavit setting out how delivery of
its reasons was effected.
[5] At the hearing, the first respondent proposed a draft order postponing the
application to be heard together with the applicant’s condonation application and its
review, with no order as to costs. The suggestion is a practical one, given that the factual
matrix which underpins the present application pertaining to the lateness of the applicant’s
review application, also underpins the condonation application which is to be determined
as part of its review application. The second respondent persisted with seeking relief.

as part of its review application. The second respondent persisted with seeking relief.
[6] It would be inappropriate for this court to effectively prejudge the condonation
application and the review, by determining the merits of the presen t application. Those

Page 4

issues fall within the purview of the review court. It would thus be in the interests of justice
for all these applications to be heard together before the same judge at the same hearing.
[7] Considering all the facts, I would have been entitled to strike the matter from the
roll for lack of urgency given the relief sought in the notice of motion. B y the time the
application was heard, the applicant had launched its condonation and review
applications. However, that would not have progres sed the matter. To preserve the
parties’ rights, it is appropriate to reserve the issue of costs.
[8] In the result, an order is granted in terms of the order attached hereto as X.

_______________________________
EF DIPPENAAR
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG JOHANNESBURG


HEARING

DATE OF HEARING : 06 AUGUST 2025

DATE OF JUDGMENT : 08 AUGUST 2025

APPEARANCES

APPLICANT’S COUNSEL : Adv. I. Veerasamy
Adv Mchunu

APPLICANT’S ATTORNEYS : Panther and Panther

FIRST RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL : Adv. S Ogunronbi

FIRST RESPONDENT’S ATTORNEYS : Seanego Attorneys

SECOND RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL : Adv. M. J. Mashavha

SECOND RESPONDENT’S ATTORNEYS : HR Munyai Attorneys