IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
(1) REPORTABLE:
(2) | OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
(3) REVISED:
(4) a> ulo3/ 9: log} 9° CASE NO.: 132866/25
In the matter between:
LOTSHA INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF MINERALS AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES First Respondent
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL: DEPARTMENT
OF MINERALS AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES Second Respondent
MOTHEO AFRICA LOGISTICS (PTY) LTD Third Respondent
THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT: PRETORIA Fourth Respondent
1
JUDGMENT
Kumalo J
INTRODUCTION
[1]. This is a reconsideration of the urgent order granted by my sister Amien AJ on
14 August 2025 in terms of Rule 6(12)(c) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
[2]. On 14 August 2025, the Court issued a rule nisi calling upon the Respondents to
show cause on the 21% of October 2025 at 10h00 or soon thereafter as the matter
may be heard why an order should not be made final that:-
2.1 The First and Second Respondents are interdicted from appointing the Third
Respondent as the Quattro Scheme Administrator of the First Respondent.
2.2 If the First and Second Respondents have already appointed the Third
Respondent as the Quattro Scheme Administrator, such appointment and
confirmation are interdicted pending the review application, which the
Applicant would launch within 90 days from the date of the order.
[3]. The Respondents were further interdicted from implementing the decision of the
Quattro Scheme Administrator tender to award the tender to the Third
Respondent.
[4]. The Applicant had approached the Court on an ex parte basis.
2
[5]. On 19 August 2025, the Third Respondent gave notice of its intention to seek an
order on 20 August 2025 at 11h30 to reconsider and set aside the urgent order
granted by Amien AJ, alternatively that it be discharged.
(6). The Applicant opposed the application and raised various issues. Firstly, the
Applicant sought to rely on the provisions of Rule 6(8) referred to in paragraph 4
above and alleged that it only received the Third Respondent's papers after
13h00 on 19 August 2025. However, this allegation is incorrect.
[7]. When the matter was called for a hearing in Court on 20 August 2025, shortly
after 12:00, the Applicant’s attorney of record indicated to this Court that their
offices had technical problems and could not access the documents which were
sent to their offices electronically at 11:36.
[8]. It is so that Rule 6(8) provides that any person against whom an order is granted
ex parte may anticipate the return date upon delivery of not less than twenty-four
hours’ notice. However, in this instance, the difference is only a matter of 6
minutes, and in any event, the matter was only heard at 14h00 on 20 August
2025. The Applicant cannot be heard to state that it suffered any prejudice in this
regard. In any event, | am of the view that it suffered no prejudice in this regard,
and Applicant could not point to any other than to rely on the technicality of the
period stipulated in the Rule.
3