SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case Number: B430/2024
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED: YES/NO
DATE: 19 August 2025
SIGNATURE:
In the matter between:
THE TRUSTEES FOR THE TIME BEING OF
AGAPI TRUST (243/2008) being:
JOHN BASIL ARSENIOU NO
HELEN LUCIA ARSENIOU NO and
LAURINE SAHD NO First Applicant
BIZBETH TRADING 30 CC Second Applicant
and
THE MINISTER, MINERAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY First Respondent
THE CONTROLLER OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS Second Respondent
CASMATH TRADING (PTY) LTD Third Respondent
GRANDWAY PROPERTY INVESTMENTS CC Fourth Respondent
JUDGMENT
CRUTCHFIELD J
[1] The applicants seek the review and setting aside of the decision of the first
respondent, the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, in respect of a site
licence and a retail licence for a commercial petrol station in the Eastern Cape. The
first applicant is the Trustees for the time being of the Agapi Trus t 243/2008) being:
John Basil Arseniou NO, Helen Lucia Arseniou NO and Laurine Sahd NO. The
second applicant is Bizbeth Trading 30 CC.
[2] The first respondent is the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and the
second respondent is the Controller of Petroleum Products ("the Controller"). The
first and second respondents do not participate in the proceedings. The third
respondent is Casmath Trading (Pty) Ltd and the fourth respondent is Grandway
Property Investments CC. The third and fourth respondents oppose the application.
[3] This is part B of the application. The applicants seek relief in terms of Part B
in the following terms:
a. That the decision of 12 February 2024 of the first respondent in the
appeal by the third respondent and the fourth respondent be reviewed and set
aside;
b. That the decision of the second respondent, dated 31 July 2023,
rejecting the retail and site licence applications of the third and fourth
respondents be reinstated forthwith;
c. That any site and retail licence certi ficates issued by the first
respondent in favour of the third and fourth respondents be declared null and
void and be returned to the first respondent and cancelled;
d. That the first, third and fourth respondents jointly and severally pay the
costs of the application on the scale as between attorney and client. The
reason for the costs order sought against the Minister is that, according to the
applicants, the latter was delinquent in overruling the Controller.
[4] The application concerns the Minister's decision to overrule a decision of the
Controller denying the issue of petrol and retail licences under the Petroleum
Product Act, 1977 (as amended) ("the Act"), and the Minister's instruction to the
Controller to issue the licences. The review is based on the principle of legality.
[5] The facts relevant to this application, briefly stated, are set out herein below.
[6] The Controller initially, on or about 31 July 2023, refused the third and fourth
respondents' applications for a site and a retail licence in respect of a commercial
petrol station to be established in the Eastern Cape town of Komani. Pursuant
thereto, the third and fourth respondents proceeded with an internal appeal in terms
of s12A(1) of the Act, to the Minister. The latter upheld the appeal and ordered that
the Controller grant the licences in favour of the third and the fourth respondents.
[7] The applicants bring this review application in terms of Part B against the
ministerial proceedings.
[8] The applicants contend that the Minister's decision dated 12 February 2024, is
both legally and factually wrong and insupportable, grossly irreconcilable with the
empowering Act as well as baseless and irrational, such that the bona fides of the
Minister is questionable and the decision stands to be set aside.
[9] The third and fourth respondents applied previously, during 2016, for site and
retail licences. The Controller rejected the applications. Thereafter, the Minister,
some two years after the tim e period relevant to an appeal, interceded on behalf of
the third and fourth respondents setting aside the Controller's decision, directed the
Controller to reconsider his decision. The Controller, having done so, again rejected
the third and fourth respondents' applications.
[10] The third and fourth respondents appealed again, and the Minister upheld the
appeal.
[11] Thus, this is the third instance of the Minister overruling the Controller's
decision. In respect of the previous instance, legal proceedi ngs in the Eastern Cape
to review and set aside the Minister's decision were granted upon the third and fourth
respondents withdrawing their opposition to those proceedings.
[12] The applicants' opposition to the granting of the site and retail licences ( "the
licences") relevant to this application, in favour of the third and fourth respondent, is
that there are thirteen existing petrol stations servicing an approximately 1 kilometre
radius in the town of Komani, Eastern Cape. All major fuel brands are rep resented
within the existing 13 service stations. The grant of the licences in favour of the third
and fourth respondents will, according to the applicants, result in the bankruptcy of
the applicants' business, a result that is prohibited by the Act.
[13] The Controller's office in the local area undertook a site inspection on 3
November 2022, after which it submitted a site visit report.
[14] The relevant site is described as Erf 1[...], Queenstown, Enoch Mgijima Local
Municipality, Province of Eastern C ape and is situated on vacant land on the
eastbound side along Komani Street, cornering with Bells Street. It is apparent from
the site visit report that the inspector was the Regional Director of the Eastern Cape,
Mr Makhosini Mngomezulu, from the office of the second respondent. Mr
Mngomezulu ("the inspector"), inspected the site, interviewed the applicants and
conducted a competitor analysis in order to assess the need as well as the economic
viability of the proposed site in terms of the third and fourth respondents' applications
("the proposed site").
[15] The inspector inspected the existing sites, interviewed the relevant contact
persons in respect of those existing sites as well as the contact persons in respect of
the proposed site, considered the volumes pumped by each existing sites and the
capacity of those sites.
capacity of those sites.
[16] The site visit report lists the criteria and factors considere d by the inspector in
conducting the site visit and in reaching the outcome of the site visit, as the following:
the number of service stations and their proximity to the proposed site; the distance
between the proposed site and the existing licenced filli ng stations (competitors) to
the proposed site; volumes pumped by the competitor sites (period to be determined,
growth or declining volumes); road infrastructure, feeder roads, access points to the
proposed sites; serviced and sub -serviced traffic flows; municipal plans for new or
proposed developments (residential, commercial) or developer confirmation of recent
realised developments, or proposed timeline of developments; new markets that the
proposed site is targeting; attraction points - points of publi c interest in the
surrounding area linked to the proposed location that attracts traffic; traffic counts
supplied by the applicant; business plan from the applicant; design capacity of
existing sites (could not obtain confirmation from oil companies in tim e for the report);
expert report - feasibility studies; all other mandatory requirements set out in the Act
and Regulations.
[17] The inspector identified eleven existing competitors to the proposed site, the
closest being approximately 300 metres from th e proposed site, also on Komani
Road, westbound. The second competitor is approximately 400 metres from the
proposed site, also along Komani Road. The remaining existing competitors
identified by the inspector are on roads surrounding Komani Road within an
approximately one -kilometre radius of the proposed site. According to the site visit
report, there are two existing service stations, both on Komani Road and on the
same side of Komani Road as the proposed site, that are in direct competition to the
proposed site.
[18] The inspector inspected the eleven competing sites and noted in respect of
each location, the type of products offered, the operating hours, staff compliment,
verified volumes pumped for 2020, 2021 and 2022, the carrying capacity of each site,
the number of pumps and nozzles offered and available at each site, inter alia.
[19] Having undertaken what appears to be a comprehensive exercise in
[19] Having undertaken what appears to be a comprehensive exercise in
considering the location of the proposed site, the road network in the geographical
area and the existing fuel statio ns in the location, the inspector concluded that there
is no need for the proposed fuel station at the proposed site.
[20] The inspector also notes that the establishment of the proposed site will
impact the existing service stations as at least seven of the existing service stations
are all less than 1 kilometre from the proposed site. Accordingly, the outcome of the
Controller's decision is that there is no need for the proposed site and that the
proposed site together with the existing sites will not be economically viable.
[21] The applicants allege that the granting of the licences in favour of the third
and fourth respondents will, in effect, destroy the viability of their existing fuel station,
Bizbeth Trading 30 CC trading as Komani Station, locate d at […] K[…] Street
(eastbound), approximately 300 metres from the proposed site.
[22] The inspector notes that the applicants' site targets the Queenstown market
and the shopping mall alongside which the applicants' existing site is situated.
[23] The decision of the Minister dated 12 February 2024, determined that the
Controller, in declining the licences, failed to discharge his duty to verify the
information submitted to the Controller as required. Other than the expert reports
submitted by the third and fourth respondents, referred to specifically by the Minister,
it is not apparent what information the Minister alleges the Controller did not verify.
[24] Furthermore, the Minister alleges that the Controller placed "substantial
emphasis" on the effe ct on the two existing service stations identified as direct
competitors to the proposed site, and that the report has a narrow focus, without
consideration of crucial factors such as new or proposed developments, expert
reports, feasibility reports, traff ic flows and accessibility of the site. The report
compiled by Urban -Eco Development Economists, submitted by the applicants for
the licence, being the third and fourth respondents herein, reflects an increase in the
population growth in the area. The Controller, according to the Minister, failed to take
population growth in the area. The Controller, according to the Minister, failed to take
such factors into account, including new and proposed commercial and residential
developments, growth in migration, new and anticipated developments, and the
proposed site and upward trajectory of demand. A ccording to the Minister, the site
visit report has a narrow focus and the fact that the granting of the licences in favour
of the third and fourth respondents might create some hardship to existing service
stations is not decisive of the issue and stands to be weighed against all relevant
considerations.
[25] The Minister concludes that it is apparent from the information available, that
all other objectives in s2B(2) of the Act have been satisfied and that there is a need
for the proposed site and the retailing business in respect of the proposed site will be
economically viable. In addition, the Minister relies on the transformation objectives
referred to in s2C of the Act, employment opportunities that will be created by the
proposed site as well as op portunities for the development of small business and
access to affordable petroleum products to the community to be served by the
proposed site.
[26] Accordingly, the Minister set aside the Controller's decision refusing the third
and fourth respondents' applications for the licences, granted the licences and
instructed the Controller to issue the licences in favour of the third and fourth
respondents, subject to compliance with Regulations 14 and 19.
[27] The Minister's decision is notwithstanding that s12 of the Act does not provide
for the Minister on appeal to issue a licence or replace the decision of the Controller
as the statutory functionary allocated in terms of the Act.
[28] The third and fourth respondents oppose Part B of the application on t he
grounds that the applicants' criticisms of the Minister's decision are without any basis,
without any facts substantiating the allegations and that the applicants do not set out
any grounds for the review, other than saying that the Minister's decision is wrong. A
review is not concerned with the correctness or otherwise of a decision but with the
process by which the decision is reached.
[29] The Act together with the Regulations prescribe the requirements and criteria
for the issue of a site and retai l licence by the Controller. The latter is the functionary
enjoined under the Act to issue the licences.
enjoined under the Act to issue the licences.
[30] The Regulations prescribe how applications stand to be evaluated by the
Controller. Section 2B of the Act provides that the Controller must issue licences in
accordance with the provisions of the Act. In considering the issue of any licences,
the Controller shall give effect to the provisions of s2C and the five objectives listed
thereunder, including the transformation of the petroleum industry an d the
advancement of historically disadvantaged people.
[31] The Controller, in granting a site licence, must verify that the information and
documents placed before the Controller are true and correct and that notice of the
application has been publishe d. The Controller must verify the information and that
the criteria prescribed under the Act are met. The Controller must verify in terms of
Regulation 6 that there is a need for the granting of the licence and that the grant will
promote the objectives aforementioned.
[32] Regulation 18 in respect of the evaluation of a retail licence is the same. The
Controller must verify that the retail business will be economically viable and that the
retail operation will promote the objectives aforementioned, in compliance with the
Act.
[33] Accordingly, the Controller must verify in respect of a site licence, that there is
a need for that site licence, and in respect of the retail operation, that it is
economically viable. In respect of both licences, the Controller must verify that t hey
will promote the licencing objectives. Moreover, it is the duty of the applicant for the
licences, being the third and fourth respondents, to establish the criteria of a
verifiable need for the proposed licence and the economic sustainability thereof.
[34] The Act and the Regulations set out the criteria and the objectives to be met
in order for the granting of a licence. The respondents argued that the Minister and
the Controller have a discretion in respect of the consideration of the requirements
and the granting of the licences. The respondents referred me to a number of cases
where the functionary is required in terms of the empowering statute, to "satisfy"
where the functionary is required in terms of the empowering statute, to "satisfy"
himself or herself. That, however, is not the case under s2B of the Act. The
Controller in t erms thereof, is required to verify the information that is placed before
him and to verify that the criteria under the Act are met prior to granting a licence.1
[35] There is no reference to or use of the words "is satisfied" in respect of the
Controller's functions in accessing and granting or denying the licences. Instead, the
words used are that the Controller must "verify" that the criteria under the Act are
met. No function by a functionary can however be untrammelled, all must be lawfully,
reasonable and procedurally carried out. 2 Whilst the court in The Trustees of the
Simcha Trust v Da Crus & Others; City of Cape Town v Da Crus & Others dealt with
a discretion and the exercise thereof, the statements therein that a discretion not be
untrammelled and all admi nistrative action must be lawfully, reasonably and
procedurally fair, applies equally to the circumstances before me.
[36] The respondents contend that the appeal before the Minister is a wide appeal,
the Minister considers the appeal de nov o and the Mini ster exercises the same
discretion as the Controller. Whilst the Minister in terms of s12 can have regard to
new information placed before him, there is no indication that such new information
or documents were in fact placed before the Minister on behalf of the third and fourth
respondents in this matter.
[37] The third and fourth respondents allege, not incorrectly, that the questions
raised before me are whether the Minister exercised his discretion, having
considered the relevant factors required, and whether the decision taken by the
Minister was reasonable in the circumstances.
[38] These questions stand to be considered in the context of it being the third and
fourth respondents, being the applicants for the relevant licences, which must
demonstrate their entitlement to the licences.
1 Nine Ninety -Nine Projects (Pty) Ltd & Another v Minister of Energy & Others
(A543/12) [2014] ZAGPPHC335.
(A543/12) [2014] ZAGPPHC335.
2 The Trustees of the Simcha Trust v Da Crus & Others; City of Cape Town v Da
Crus & Others 2019 (3) SA 78 (CC) at [76].
[39] The applicants, in dealing with the decision of the Minister and the legal basis
as to why that decision cannot be upheld, deal with the material paragraphs of the
Minister's reasons in the founding affidavit and i n the supplementary affidavit
deposed to after the record became available.
[40] The third and fourth respondents' averments that the applicants do not set out
the grounds on which the Minister's decision is reviewable, is not correct and cannot
be supported.
[41] Whilst the applicants may not use the strict language of a review, the content
of their criticism of the relevant paragraphs of the Minister's decision and the reasons
therefor, is sufficient to grant a review of decision.
[42] It is so that th e Controller considered and relied on the proximity of the
proposed site to the existing sites, particularly the proximity to the applicants' site,
situated some 300 metres from the proposed site on the same side of Komani Road
as the proposed site, and on e other existing site. However, proximity was not the
only consideration brought to bear by the Controller in reaching the decision.
[43] The Controller, in addition, undertook a competitor analysis and considered
the need in the marketplace for the propo sed site. It stands to reason that the
proximity of the proposed site to the various existing sites identified by the Controller
is a relevant factor in the analysis of the need in the marketplace for the proposed
site.
[44] The Controller, however, considered, in addition, the location of the proposed
site, the environment surrounding the proposed site, including that there is a
shopping mall next to the proposed site, the road network in the area and other filling
stations i n the geographical area. The Controller concluded that having taken the
various factors into account, there was no need for the proposed site at the proposed
location.
[45] It is noteworthy that in undertaking the competitive analysis of the eleven
location.
[45] It is noteworthy that in undertaking the competitive analysis of the eleven
existing service stations in the one kilometre proximity to the proposed site, the
existing service stations identified by the Controller, the latter noted the volumes
pumped by each existing service station, the carrying capacity, products sold, the
number of p umps and nozzles offered by each station, the hours that each service
station operates and the number of employees employed by each service station.
[46] According to the applicants, the industry uses a litreage of 350 000 litres per
month as a sustainability measure. The Minister uses a lower monthly litreage. In the
light of the 350 000 litres per month sustainability measure utilised by the industry,
and a consideration of the litres pumped by the various existing sites referred to and
analysed in the site visit report, demonstrate that the marketplace does not need the
proposed site and that the proposed site, if permitted, as well as the existing sites
cannot together be economically viable in the light of the litres pumped. In the
circumstances, the applicants contend that the third and fourth respondents' intention
is to corner the entire market in the area and bring about the demise of the
applicants' site, an outcome that cannot be permitted under the Act.
[47] Furthermore, the Controller concludes that the proposed site will negatively
impact the existing sites. This is due to the existing number of service stations within
a limited radius of less than 1 kilometre from the proposed site. It is evident from the
above-mentioned that whilst proximity is a material consideration in this matter as a
result of the facts on the ground, so to speak, it is not the sole factor upon which the
Controller relied, and in the context of the facts set out above, the issue of proximity
was not substantially emphasis ed or overemphasised by the Controller as stated by
the Minister. Given the content of the site visit report, including the competitive
analysis of the material factors in respect of each of the existing sites, the site report
does not focus solely on proximity as stated by the Minister.
does not focus solely on proximity as stated by the Minister.
[48] Insofar as the Minister criticises the report for being "narrow" and having a
narrow focus, that criticism is unjustifiable and unreasonable regard being had to the
facts aforementioned. The Minister fails to articula te what other "considerations" or
"crucial factors" ought to have been considered by the Controller but were not so
considered.
[49] In respect of the Minister's reliance on the third and fourth respondents' expert
report, the report of Urban -Echo, the site visit report states that the expert reports of
the applicants (being the third and fourth respondents herein), and the feasibility
studies were considered. The inspector states in terms of the criteria and facts
considered in the site visit and application, that the expert report - feasibility studies
were taken into account.
[50] Furthermore, the report of Urban -Echo does not reflec t evidence, facts, of
approved developments, be they commercial or residential, that are in the process of
development. Nor does the report reflect evidence of growth in the population or the
number of households.
[51] Furthermore, there is no requirement that the Controller must deal paragraph
by paragraph with the content of the expert reports. The Controller is required to deal
with relevant fact-based data, not speculative considerations as set out in the report
of Urban -Echo. The expert report does no t contain and is not premised on actual
fact-based data.
[52] Insofar as the site visit report refers to the existing local population and those
making use of the shopping centre situated alongside the proposed site, the
Controller found that the market is adequately serviced by the existing sites.
[53] The Minister does not articulate the alleged "information available"
demonstrating that the objectives of s2B(2) of the Act have been satisfied.
[54] In respect of the transformation objectives referred t o by the Minister with
reference to the case of Somai v National Minister: Department of Energy 3, relied on
by the Minister, there is no requirement that the licence be granted solely be cause
an applicant is historically disadvantaged.
[55] The provisions for the advancement of previously disadvantaged South
Africans are to be given effect by the Controller in considering the licence
3 Somai v National Minister: Department of Energy 2019 JDR 0291 (KZD)
applications in terms of the Act, the requirements in respect of which are set out in
s2B(2). Accordingly, the status of an applicant as previously disadvantaged is one
factor for consideration in a licence application and not the sole factor or even the
overriding factor in the determination as the Minister contends.
[56] In circumstances where the Controller determines that there is no need for the
proposed site and that the proposed site together with the existing sites will not all be
economically viable, there is no justifiable basis to award the licence s on the ground
that the applicant for the licence is a historically disadvantaged person.
[57] As to the Minister's statement that the licencing of the proposed site will
create employment opportunities, the Minister does not take into account the
conclusion of the Controller that the proposed site will negatively impact the existing
sites, be it that of the applicant or any other. It is probable that such a negative
impact will result in the loss of job opportunities to employees employed at those
existing sites, a fact that the Minister does not consider. In the circumstances, the
Minister's reliance on the proposed job opportunities to be created, is misconceived
in that it does not take into account the negative effect on the existing employees
employed at the existing sites.
[58] It is noteworthy that although the Minister determined that the Controller
reached a decision in the absence of the relevant investigations, the Minister himself
relied on the same material as was before the Controller to reverse the decision of
the Controller and instruct the Controller to issue the licences.
[59] In the circumstances set out above, I am of the view that the proceedings by
the Controller took into account and considered the relevant factors and
circumstances necessary to reach a decision. The Controller's decision relates
directly, reasonably and rationally to the facts on the ground, so to speak, before him.
directly, reasonably and rationally to the facts on the ground, so to speak, before him.
[60] There is no justifiable basis for the invention of the Minister in respect of the
decision of the Controller and the reasons for that decision.
[61] Furthermore, the memorandum and the reasons for the Minister's decision are
incorrect in various respects including that the Controller failed to consider the third
and fourth respondents' expert reports.
[62] Moreover, whilst the Minister criticises the site visit report, the Minister does
not analyse and apply the relevant facts and necessary criteria itself justifying the
instruction to the Controller to grant the licences in terms of the appeal.
[63] Irregularities by the Contr oller, actual or alleged, do not justify the granting of
the licences in terms of the Minister's instruction to the Controller, on appeal. The
Minister is obliged to justify the granting of the licences in terms of the Act and its
requirements and criteria. Moreover, the Minister is not authorised in terms of s12 to
grant licences, only the Controller can do so. Whilst the Minister considers an appeal
de novo including fresh information, the same criteria that govern the consideration
of the appeal govern t he grant of licences by the Controller and ought to have been
given consideration by the Minister. The latter, the Minister, does not demonstrate
the criteria in terms of which the Minister determined that the Controller should grant
the licences.
[64] There is no justification by the Minister for the instruction to the Controller to
grant the licences. Nor are there grounds set out by the Minister for the instruction to
the Controller. The conditions for the issue of the licences were not met, the Ministe r
had no reason, no basis and no justification to order that the Controller issue the
licences. There is nothing by the Minister that reflects that the criteria in terms of the
Act were met by the decision of the Minister.
[65] The question before me according to the applicants, is whether the Minister or
the body under review, being the Minister's decision, was legally permitted to take
the decision to order the Controller to issue the licences in the manner in which the
the decision to order the Controller to issue the licences in the manner in which the
Minister did so. The answer is no. This is because the licencing criteria in terms of
the Act are not considered by the Minister. 4 In Esau & O thers v Minister of
Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs & Others , the SCA relied on R v
4 Esau & Others v Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs &
Others 2021 (3) SA 593 (SCA) at para [7].
Somerset County Council, ex parte Fewings & Others .5 The SCA quoted "the only
question for the Judges (is) whether the decision taken by the body under review
was one which it was legally permitted to take in the way that it did". The answer in
the context of this application, is no.
[66] In the circumstances, I intend t o set aside the decision of the Minister. As to
the remedy, special circumstances are required in order for this Court to decline to
send the matter back to the Minister for reconsideration.
[67] This matter has travelled back and forth between the Contro ller and the
Minister on two previous occasions, with the Minister interceding consistently on
behalf of the third and fourth respondents without justification.
[68] In the circumstances it is probable that if I remit the matter back to the
Minister for reconsideration, the current position will simply be repeated with no
finality being brought to the issues or to the parties and additional legal costs being
incurred. In the circumstances, I am minded to substitute the Minister's decision with
that of this Court and to grant an order in terms of the applicants' notice of motion.
[69] In respect of the costs of the application, there is no reason why they should
not follow the order on the merits. As to the scale of costs, the matter is complex and
of importance to the parties. In the circumstances, I intend to grant costs on scale C.
[70] One further issue stands to be addressed and that is the delay in delivering
the judgment. I regret the delay and I apologise to the litigants in respect of that
delay. Regrettably, I was faced with an untenable workload during the week of 17
February 2025. As a result, it was not possible to deliver this judgment within the
three-month period considered best practice for the delivery of judgments.
[71] In the circumstances, I grant the following order:
5 R v Somerset County Council, ex parte Fewings & Others [1995] 1 ER 513 (QB) at
515 D-G.
1. The decision of 12 February 2024 of the first respondent (the Minister of
Mineral Resources and Energy) in the appeal by the third and fourth
respondents, is reviewed and set aside.
2. The decision of the Controller of Petroleum Products (the second
respondent) dated 31 July 2023, to reject the retail and site licence
applications of the third and fourth respondents are reinstated forthwith.
3. Consequent on the above, any site and retail licence certif icates issued
by the first respondent to the third and fourth respondents are declared
to be null and void and are to be returned to the first respondent and
cancelled.
applications of the third and fourth respondents are reinstated forthwith.
3. Consequent on the above, any site and retail licence certificates issued
by the first respondent to the third and fourth respondents are declared
to be null and void and are to be returned to the first respondent and
cancelled.
4. The first, third and fourth respon dents, jointly and severally, the one
paying the other to be absolved are ordered to pay the applicants' costs
of the application on scale C.
5. The costs referred to above include the reserved costs of the interdict
proceedings before Mooki J and delivere d in terms of Part A of this
application.
I hand down the judgment.
CRUTCHFIELD J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
PRETORIA
For the Applicant: Adv BG Savvas instructed by MKA
Attorneys.
For the Third and Fourth Respondents: Adv P Lazarus instructed by Kaplan
Blumberg Attorneys
Date of the hearing: 17 February 2025
Date of the judgment: 19 August 2025