• Law Reports
  • United Zebediela Taxi Association v Masoga and Others …

United Zebediela Taxi Association v Masoga and Others (2025/249463) [2026] ZALMPPHC 2 (5 January 2026)

60 Reportability
Administrative Law
View PDF SAFLII Source
Share WhatsApp LinkedIn X Email

Brief Summary

Interdict — Taxi operations — The United Zebediela Taxi Association sought a final interdict against various respondents to prevent them from operating taxis along designated routes without valid permits. The court examined the history of taxi associations in the Zebediela region and the implications of non-joinder of the Department of Transport. The court ultimately ruled on the necessity of joining parties with a direct interest in the matter.

Comprehensive Summary

Summary of Judgment


Introduction


The proceedings were an urgent application in the Limpopo Division of the High Court (Polokwane) in which the applicant sought a final interdict aimed at preventing certain respondents from operating minibus taxis on routes alleged to be allocated to the applicant and its members, and from interfering with the applicant’s taxi operations.


The applicant was the United Zebediela Taxi Association (also referred to in the judgment as UZETA). The first to sixth respondents were individuals (referred to collectively as “the respondents” in parts of the judgment). A seventh respondent was cited as “Unknown Persons”, and the National Commissioner of Police, the Provincial Commissioner of Police (Limpopo), and the Station Commander (Zebediela Police Station) were cited as the eighth to tenth respondents.


The matter was enrolled on the urgent court roll on 30 December 2025. Although the order sought purported to include relief against the police respondents (eighth to tenth), the court noted that the application had not been served on them and therefore the relief sought against them was not considered. The court also refused to consider relief against the seventh respondent (“Unknown Persons”) on the basis that an interdict cannot be granted against unidentifiable persons.


The general subject-matter concerned conflict over entitlement to operate taxi routes in the Zebediela region, the status and consequences of historical mergers between taxi associations, and the legality of taxi operations allegedly conducted without valid operating licences or permits.


Material Facts


Historically, there were violent clashes in the Zebediela taxi industry around 2003, arising from disputes concerning entitlement to operate along routes in the area. As a response to this conflict, certain taxi associations agreed to merge.


The judgment records that the Zebediela Taxi Association and the Majaneng Taxi Association merged to form the Zebediela Pietersburg Taxi Association, and later the Mandebele Taxi Association joined, resulting in the formation of the United Zebediela Association (UZETA), being the applicant in these proceedings.


It was not in dispute that the Majaneng Taxi Association, the Mandebele Taxi Association, and the Zebediela Pietersburg Taxi Association were no longer active associations in name, and that UZETA was the holder of operating licences, with licences apparently “assigned” under its umbrella in respect of the original groupings. However, the court recorded material uncertainties that were not clarified on the papers, including how many operating licences existed, when they were issued, whether licences were transferred into UZETA’s name or issued afresh, and the conditions attaching to them.


A central factual dispute concerned the meaning and effect of the final merger. The applicant’s case was that the earlier associations ceased to exist upon merging, and that UZETA was the only properly constituted association for those operations. The respondents’ case was that the merger was effectively in name only, and that the earlier groupings continued operating their original routes separately under UZETA’s umbrella, with the three associations continuing to conduct their affairs separately in practice.


The applicant relied on an alleged agreement said to have been reached at a meeting involving the respondents and the Lebowakgomo Taxi Association, to the effect that only associations with valid licences would operate in the Zebediela area. The court noted that the applicant stated an agreement was attached to the founding affidavit, but no agreement was attached, and the precise terms were not pleaded.


A further meeting occurred in November 2025 involving the Department of Transport (Limpopo) and the relevant associations, including Lebowakgomo. What transpired at that meeting was disputed. The respondents contended there was an agreement that three different associations would operate their original routes using operating licences under UZETA 1, UZETA 2, and UZETA 3. The applicant contended there was no agreement, only a recommendation by the Department, which the applicant stated it formally rejected on 8 December 2025.


The broader context included escalating conflict among the applicant, the respondents (allegedly operating under the guise of older associations), and the Lebowakgomo Taxi Association, which the applicant alleged operated without operating licences. The papers recorded serious violence, including the deaths of drivers and a further shooting incident on 27 March 2024 in which four people were killed. The Department of Transport (Limpopo) became involved through meetings aimed at resolving disputes, but the conflict remained unresolved.


Legal Issues


The court identified two central questions.


The first issue was procedural and concerned non-joinder: whether the MEC for Transport (Limpopo) (referred to in places as the MEC for Transport and Community Safety) had a direct and substantial interest requiring joinder, and whether other affected parties, particularly the Lebowakgomo Taxi Association (and any other taxi association operating in the region), should have been joined. If non-joinder was established, the court had to determine the appropriate consequence, including whether to dismiss the application or strike it from the roll.


The second issue was substantive, namely whether the applicant had satisfied the requirements for a final interdict. This required the court to consider whether the applicant had established a clear right, whether there was an injury committed or reasonably apprehended, and whether there was no alternative remedy.


In addition, the judgment noted the existence of a dispute of fact relating to the merger arrangements and engagements with the Department of Transport (Limpopo), raising the possibility that the matter might not be capable of proper determination on affidavit and might require the procedural mechanisms under Uniform Rule 6(5)(g).


Court’s Reasoning


Non-joinder and direct and substantial interest


The court applied the principle that a court should not adjudicate disputes where an order may prejudice the rights and interests of persons who are not parties, unless such parties are joined or otherwise given a proper opportunity to be heard. Reliance was placed on authority dealing with necessary joinder, and on the distinction between disposing of a matter on the merits and striking it from the roll for procedural defects.


On the facts, the court considered the role of the Department of Transport and the statutory framework governing instability and violence in the taxi industry. The judgment referred to section 91 of the National Transport Act 5 of 2009, which empowers the MEC, in circumstances of violence, unrest, or instability, to declare an area and implement extraordinary measures, including closing routes or ranks, suspending operating licences, and potentially issuing temporary permits in substitution.


Given that the papers described serious historical and recent taxi violence and ongoing instability, and given that the Department of Transport (Limpopo) had already been involved in meetings attempting to resolve the disputes, the court concluded that the matter potentially fell within the ambit of section 91. That statutory competence and responsibility meant the MEC for Transport (Limpopo) had a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter and in the outcome, because court-ordered relief might intersect with, constrain, or trigger the MEC’s statutory powers and duties in circumstances of instability.


The court also reasoned that the relief sought, particularly the prayer aimed at interdicting the respondents from ferrying passengers on “any other routes” falling within the applicant’s operational jurisdiction, could prejudice the Lebowakgomo Taxi Association and other operators not before the court. The citation of “Unknown Persons” was understood by the court to imply persons beyond the first to sixth respondents, which, in the context of the dispute, would include the Lebowakgomo Taxi Association. The court characterised this aspect of the relief as effectively seeking exclusivity over routes, with implications for other operators’ ability to trade and for the Department’s regulatory function, including the possibility of issuing operating licences on those routes.


In these circumstances, the court held that the MEC for Transport (Limpopo) and the Lebowakgomo Taxi Association (and any other taxi association operating within the Zebediela region) were necessary parties and should have been joined. Applying authority on the appropriate procedural consequence of non-joinder, the court concluded that the matter should be struck from the roll rather than dismissed, because non-joinder was treated as a procedural deficiency rather than a determination of the merits.


Clear right for a final interdict


Although the finding on non-joinder was dispositive of the hearing, the court added that even absent non-joinder it was not persuaded that the applicant had established a clear right, which is the first requirement for final interdictory relief.


The court accepted the statutory proposition that operating a taxi without an operating licence is prohibited and constitutes an offence under the National Transport Act. However, the applicant had not placed the operating licences before the court. The founding affidavit referred to licences supposedly attached and marked “UZT2”, but the relevant documents were not attached. Without the licences showing the relevant details (such as the holder, date of issue, and designated routes), the court held that the applicant could not be found to have proved a clear right on the papers.


Dispute of fact


The court further noted that there was a material dispute of fact regarding the merger agreement and the subsequent discussions with the Department of Transport (Limpopo). It indicated that if the matter were re-enrolled, it might need to be addressed under Uniform Rule 6(5)(g), which empowers a court to direct oral evidence, refer the matter to trial, or make other procedural directions where an application cannot properly be decided on affidavit.


Outcome and Relief


The court ordered that the application be struck from the roll due to the non-joinder of the MEC for Transport and Community Safety (Limpopo) and the Lebowakgomo Taxi Association, as well as any other taxi association operating within the Zebediela region.


The applicant was ordered to pay the wasted costs on Scale B.


No relief was considered against the eighth to tenth respondents due to lack of service, and no relief was considered against the seventh respondent because “Unknown Persons” were not identifiable for purposes of an interdict.


Cases Cited


Amalgamated Engineering Union v Minister of Labour 1949 (3) SA 637 (A)


Stonehill Property Fund Proprietary Limited v Shongwe and Another (20421/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 311 (16 October 2024)


Turner and Another v Ntintelo and Another (A248/22) [2023] ZAWCHC 51 (8 March 2023)


Skhosana and Others v Roos t/a Roos se Oord and Others 2000 (4) SA 561 (LCC)


Legislation Cited


National Transport Act 5 of 2009 (as referenced in the judgment, including sections 50, 51, 57, 58, 90, and 91)


National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996


Rules of Court Cited


Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 6(5)(g)


Held


The court held that the MEC for Transport (Limpopo) and the Lebowakgomo Taxi Association (together with any other taxi association operating in the region) had a direct and substantial interest in the relief sought, such that their absence constituted non-joinder. Because non-joinder is a procedural defect, the appropriate order was to strike the application from the roll rather than to dismiss it on the merits.


The court further held that, even if non-joinder had not been dispositive, the applicant had not established a clear right for purposes of a final interdict because it failed to attach the operating licences relied upon. The court also recognised that material disputes of fact existed which could require resort to the mechanisms in Rule 6(5)(g) should the matter be pursued again.


LEGAL PRINCIPLES


A party must be joined to proceedings if it has a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter and in the outcome of the litigation, in the sense that an order cannot be sustained or carried into effect without prejudicing that party’s interests. A court should avoid making orders that may prejudice the rights of persons who were not before it and were not afforded an opportunity to be heard.


Where non-joinder of a necessary party is established in application proceedings, the defect is treated as procedural rather than a determination on the merits. In appropriate circumstances, the court may strike the matter from the roll, which suspends determination pending proper joinder, rather than dismissing it in a manner that finally disposes of the case.


In applications for a final interdict, the applicant must establish a clear right (as the first requirement), an injury committed or reasonably apprehended, and the absence of an adequate alternative remedy. Where the right asserted depends on documentary proof (such as operating licences and route authorisations), failure to place the necessary documents before the court may prevent a finding that a clear right has been established.


Where there are material disputes of fact not capable of resolution on affidavit, Uniform Rule 6(5)(g) empowers the court to adopt procedures to ensure a just and expeditious determination, including directing oral evidence on specified issues or referring the matter to trial.

1
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
LIMPOPO DIVISION , POLOKWANE
CASE NO: 2025/249463
(1)
(2)
(3)
REPORT ABLE: YES/NO
OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: YES/NO
REVISED.
2026/01/05 DATE ......................... SIGNATURE..
In the matter between:
UNITED ZEBEDIELA TAXI ASSOCIATION
and
MASOGA TSHEPHO
PHALANEJOHN
MATHIBELA ABEL KEKANA
TLAKE ABEL MMAMPEPE
TEMA TSHEPHO
RAMASEHLATSHEPHO
Applic ant
First Respondent
Second Respondent
Third Respondent
Fourth Respondent
Fifth Respondent
Sixth Respondent

2
UNKNOWN PERSONS Seventh Respondent
NATIONAL COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Eighth Respondent
PROVINCIAL COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, LIMPOPO
STATION COMMANDER: -ZEBEDIELA POLICE STATION
Nineth Respondent
Tenth Respondent
JUDGMENT
BURNETT. AJ
INTRODUCTION
[11
[2]
The matter was enrolled for hearing on the urgent court roll on Tuesday, 30
December 2025.
The Applicant seeks a final interdict against the First to Seventh Respondent as
follows: -
[2.1] "The First to Seventh Respondents are hereby interdicted and prohibited from
operating their minibus taxis along the Applicant's routes without a valid
operating permit and/or any other routes allocated to the members of the
Applicant by the Department of Transport and Community safety.

3
[2.2] The First to Seventh Respondents are interdicted and retrained from ferrying
passengers within other routes falling within the operational jurisdiction of the
Applicant and its members.
[2.3] The First to Seventh Respondents are hereby interdicted, restrained and
prohibited from preventing and/or obstructing members of the Applicant and
their drivers from engaging in their normal business of transporting
passengers along their designated routes.
[2.4] Interdicting and restraining the First to Seventh Respondents individually
and/or together with any individual and/or organisations and/or persons from
intimidating, threatening or threatening to harm members of the Applicant,
their employees and further ordered to desist unlawfully from interfering with
the Applicant's business operations in any way.
[2.5] Directing that service of the order on the First to Seventh Respondents be
affected by hand delivery by the Sheriff of the Court and by loud-speaker
notification at Disco Taxi Rank, Moletlane Village and by affixing a copy of the
order at the entrance of Disco Taxi Rank, Moletlane Village."
[3] T he application has not been served on the Eighth, Nineth and Tenth Respondents
and accordingly the relief sought against them shall not be considered by this court.
The Seventh Respondent is referred to as "Unknown Persons". One cannot obtain
an order against an unidentifiable person or persons and accordingly no relief
sought against "Unknown Persons" will be considered

4
[4] The application was properly served on the First to Sixth Respondent ("the
Respondents"), whereafter they filed a Notice of Intention to Oppose and appeared
on the date of hearing. Both parties advanced oral arguments however neither filed
a Heads of Argument. The Respondent's counsel uploaded case law on Caselines
for the Honourable Court to consider.
BACKGROUND
[5] In order to understand the nature of the dispute, it is important to know the history of
taxi operations in the Zebediela region. The court had to extract the background
from the limited information in the papers. It is important that practitioners are
diligent in preparing their papers. Background information is essential to placing a
dispute in context. It is very difficult for a court of law to make an expeditious and
accurate decision if all the relevant information is not placed before it in the
appropriate affidavits (not from the bar).
[6] In 2003 there were several violent clashes between various taxi associations. These
clashes emanated from disputes regarding the entitlement to operate along certain
routes in the area. To bring an end to the violence, some taxi associations agreed
to merge with one another.
[7] The ZEBEDIELA TAXI ASSOCIATION and the MAJANENG TAXI ASSOCIATION
merged with one another to form the ZEDEDIELA PIETERSBURG TAXI
ASSOCIATION. A short while later the MANDEBELE TAXI ASSOCIATION joined
them and then formed the UNITED ZEBEDIELA ASSOCIATION (also known as
"UZETA").

5
[8] The Applicant contends that the ZEBEDIELA TAXI ASSOCIATION and the
MAJENG TAXI ASSOCIATION ceased to exist when they merged with one another
and became the ZEBEDIELA PIETERSBURG TAXI ASSOCIATION. When
MANDEBELE TAXI ASSOCIATION merged with the ZEBEDIELA PIETERBURG
TAXI ASSOCIATION to become the UZETA, both those associations ceased to
exist. UZETA is the Applicant and according to them, they are the only properly
constituted association of all the others.
[9] The Respondents contend that when the final merger took place, it would be in
name only. By this the Respondents mean that the MAJANENG TAXI
ASSOCIATION, MANDEBELE TAXI ASSOCIATION and the ZEDEDIELA
PIETERSBURG TAXI ASSOCIATION would all operate under the umbrella of
UZETA, but they would continue to operate their original routes under the old
associations. The three associations continue to conduct their affairs separately as
if they are separate associations. In other words, it was not a merger in the full
sense.
[10] It is not in d ispute that the MAJANENG TAXI ASSOCIATION, the MANDEBELE
TAXI ASSOCIATION and the ZEDEDIELA PIETERSBURG TAXI ASSOCIATION
are no longer active associations in name. Their registration status, if any, is
unknown. It is also not in dispute that UZETA is the holder of the operating licenses,
with each of the original three taxi associations being assigned licenses under
UZETA's umbrella. It is not clear how many operating licenses were issued to
UZET A. It is not known whether these licenses were issued in t he names of
MAJANENG TAXI ASSOCIATION, the MANDEBELE TAXI ASSOCIATION and the

6
ZEDEDIELA PIETERSBURG TAXI ASSOCIATION and then transferred into the
names of UZETA, or if they were issued afresh under the name of UZETA, with the
original licenses cancelled. It is also not known when these licenses were issued
and under what conditions and how they were issued.
[11] The Respondents contend that UZETA has effectively collapsed and became
redundant. Despite the redundancy of UZETA, all the operating licenses remain
under their name. It appears the Respondents were members of MAJANENG
TAXI ASSOCIATION and the MANDEBELE TAXI ASSOCIATION.
[12] The Applicant says that at some stage is met with the Respondents and the
LEBOWAKGOMO TAXI ASSOCIATION whereby they agreed that only the
associations in possession of valid licenses would be permitted to operate within the
Zebediela area. The LEBOWAKGOMO TAXI ASSOCIATION had nothing to do with
the merger but are another taxi association operating in the area. According to the
Applicant, they are operating unlawfully. The exact nature of the agreement, and
the precise terms thereof have not been pleaded. The Applicant states in its
founding affidavit that a copy of the agreement is attached thereto, however it has
not been and is accordingly not before this court.
[13] Another meeting was held in November 2025 between the Department of Transport
(Limpopo) and members of all the relevant associations. The LEBOWAKGOMO
TAXI ASSOCIATION was also present at the meeting. It is in dispute as to what
transpired at this meeting.

7
[13.1] The Respondents say that it was agreed that the three different
associations would operate their original routes with the operating
licenses under UZETA 1, UZETA 2, UZETA 3. The three associations
would be MAJANENG TAXI ASSOCIATION the MANDEBELE TAXI
ASSOCIATION and the remaining members of UZETA.
[13.2] The Applicant says that an agreement was not reached and that the
meeting was nothing more than mediation at which time the
Department of Transport (Limpopo) merely recommended that the
three different associations operate under UZETA 1, UZETA 2 and
UZETA 3 according to their original routes but remain under the
umbrella of UZETA. The Applicant says that this proposal was
formally rejected by it on 8 December 2025.
[14] The LEBOWAKGOMO TAXI ASSOCIATION is an association that operates within
the area, however according to the Applicant, it does so without operating licenses.
Conflict has been escalating between the Applicant, the Respondents (acting under
the guise of the MAJANENG TAXI ASSOCIATION and the MANDEBELE TAXI
ASSOCIATION) and the LEBOWAKGOMO TAXI ASSOCIATION. The conflict led to
the death of three drivers employed by UZETA in January and February 2024. On
27 March 2024 four people were shot dead during the conflict between the taxi
associations in Zebediela and its surroundings. This was when the Department of
Transport (Limpopo) became involved in the affairs of these Taxi Associations.
They held meetings with them to resolve their disputes. The last meeting was the
November 2025 meeting. The conflict remains unresolved.

8
[15] The Respondents contend that the application should, inter alia, fail on the basis that
the Department of Transport (Limpopo) was not joined as a party to the proceedings.
LEGAL QUESTIONS
[16] Does the Department of Transport (Limpopo) have a material and substantial
interest in the matter, and accordingly should the MEC for Transport (Limpopo) have
been joined as a party to the proceedings? If so, should the court dismiss the
application or strike it from the roll?
[17] If the answer to the above question is negative, has the Applicant met the
requirements to obtain a final interdict, namely: -
[17.1] There must be a clear right, which right has been violated.
[17.2] The violation of the right has caused harm to the bearer of the right, or
harm to the bearer is imminent.
[17.3] There is no other remedy available to the bearer of the right.
THE LAW
Non-Joinder
[18] The Appellant Division held in Amalgamated Engineering Union v Minister of
Labour 1949 (3) SA 637 A at page 659 that: -
"Indeed is seems clear to me that the Court has consistently refrained from dealing
with issues in which a third party may have a direct and substantial interest without
either having that party joined to the suit or if the circumstances of the case admit of

9
such a course, taking other adequate steps to ensure that its judgment will not
prejudicially affect that party's interests."
[19] In the matter of Stonehi/1 Property Fund Proprietary Limited v Shongwe and
Another (20421!2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 311 (16 October 2024) at paragraph 20, 27
and 28 it was held that: -
"It should be observed that it is important to remember that when a court pronounces
a judgment it should do so without prejudice to the rights and interests of persons
who were not parties before it. In that context, it is peremptory that the issue of
prejudice must be considered in the determination of necessary non-joinder .... the
non-joinder of a necessary party is a defect in a pleading that can simply be
remedied by a joinder. Accordingly, a deficiency in pleadings had nothing to do with
the merits but is related to procedure. Put differently, a non-joinder cannot defeat
the merits, as it may be a reversible error dependant of course, upon circumstances.
To hold otherwise would be to extend the scope of and effect of a non-joinder. In
the circumstances, it seems entirely reasonable to suppose that, in an application, if
the court finds there is a non-joinder of a necessary party, it is competent for the
court to strike the matter from the roll. In any event, nothing prevents this Court from
striking the matter from the roll due to non-joinder. This is even the case as the
matter is not an action but an application. In this matter, it is however significant to
note that the respondents are not applying for joining of the parties, but they are
rather objecting to the non-joinder of parties."
[20] In the matter of Turner and Another v Ntintelo and Another (A248/22) [2023]
ZAWCHC 51 (8 March 2023) at paragraph 63 in relaying on Skhosana and Others v

10
Roos tla Roos se Oord and Others 2000 (4) SA 561 (LCC) at paragraph 19 it was
held that-
"The difference between striking a matter off the roll and dismissal is that in the case
of dismissal, the matter is disposed of and can no longer be set down on the roll
again. If the applicant wishes to proceed with the matter, he will have to start the
matter de novo. While on the other hand, striking the matter off the roll has nothing
to do with the merits of the case. It is not aimed at terminating the proceedings but
merely suspends the hearing pending an application for reinstatement."
[21] In Herbstein & Van Winsen "The Civil Practice of the High Courts of South
Africa" 5th edition (2009) at page 208, the learned author stated that following: -
"Apart from considerations of convenience, however there are circumstances in
which it is essential to join a party because of the interest that party has in the
matter. When such an interest becomes apparent the court has no discretion and
will not allow the matter to proceed without joinder or the giving of judicial notice of
the proceedings to that party. The reason for this is that it is a principle of our law
that interests parties should be afforded an opportunity to be heard in matters that
they have a direct and substantial interest .... A third party who has, or may have, a
direct and substantial interest in any order the court might make in proceedings or if
such an order cannot be sustained or carried into effect without prejudicing that
party, is a necessary party and should be joined in the proceedings .... A direct and
substantial interest has been held to be an interest in the right which is the subject
matter of litigation and not merely a financial interest in such litigation. It is a legal
interest in the subject matter of litigation, excluding an indirect commercial interest

11
only. The possibility of such an interest is sufficient, and it is not necessary for the
court to determine that in fact it exists. For a joinder to be essential, the parties to be
joined must have a direct and substantial interest not only in the subject matter of
litigation, but also in the outcome of it. It is important to remember that a
constitutionally protected right is legally enforceable and gives rise to a legal interest
which may require a joinder. Thus, whenever an order which may infringe upon the
constitutional rights of any person, those persons should be joined or given judicial
notice of the proceedings."
[22] Section 91 of the National Transport Act 5 of 2009 states that:
"(1) If in any area in the relevant province the MEG considers that, because of
violence, unrest or instability in any sector of the public transport industry in the
area or between operators in the area, the safety of.-
( a) passengers using the relevant services; or
(b) residents; or
(c) any other person entering the area,
has deteriorated to an unacceptable level, the MEG may, after consulting relevant
planning authorities, by notice in the Provincial Gazette, define the area and declare
it to be an area in respect of which the notification prescribing the extraordinary
measures contemplated in subsection (2) may be made.
(2) The MEG may, by giving notice in the Provincial Gazette, give notice that-
a) one or more or all the routes or ranks in such a declared area are closed
for the operation of any type of public transport service, for the period stated
in the notice.

12
(b) any operating license or permit authorising any of the services referred to
in paragraph (a) on a closed route or routes or at a closed rank or ranks in the
declared area are suspended for the relevant period.
(c) subject to subsection (6), no person may undertake any of the services
referred to in paragraph (a) on a closed route or routes or at a closed rank or
ranks in the declared area or in terms of an operating license or permit
suspended as contemplated in paragraph (b) for the relevant period.
(3) Before making the notice in terms of subsection (2), the MEG must cause a
notice to be published in the prescribed manner, stating
(a) in summary the nature and purpose of the proposed regulations.
(b) the route or routes and ranks which are proposed to be closed, or that it is
proposed to close all routes and ranks in the declared area.
(c) the period for which the proposed regulations will be in force.
(d) that interested or affected parties may request reasons for the proposed
regulations.
(e) that any interested or affected person is entitled to make representations.
(f) the time within which representations may be made, which may not be less
than 24 hours.
(g) the address to which representations must be submitted.
(h) the manner in which representations must be made
(4) The MEG must consider any representations received under subsection (3)
before making a regulation under subsection (2).
(5) The notification contemplated in terms of subsection (2) may provide that a
contravention thereof or a failure to comply therewith constitutes an offence and may

13
prescribe penalties in respect thereof which may be a fine, or imprisonment for a
period not exceeding six months.
(6) The notification may provide for the issuing of temporary permits to
operators of motor vehicles of specified types, to operate services on a closed
route or routes or at a closed rank or ranks for the period of their closure in
substitution of the forbidden services.
(7) After giving notice as contemplated in subsection (3), the MEG may, by notice in
the Provincial Gazette, temporarily suspend any operating license or permit insofar
as it authorises public transport in a declared area on a route or routes or at a rank
or ranks not closed in terms of the notice contemplated in terms subsection (2), for
the period the MEG considers appropriate.
11
Clear right
[23] Section 50 of the National Transport Act 5 of 2009 states that: -
"(1) No person may operate a road-based public transport service, unless he or she
is the holder of an operating license or a permit, subject to sections 47,48 and 49,
issued for the vehicle concerned in terms of this Act.
11
[24] Section 51 of the National Transport Act 5 of 2009 states that: -
"An operating license must only be issued on application made in terms of this Act
by the National Public Transport Regulator, a Provincial Regulatory Entity or a
municipality to which the operating license function has been assigned, as the case
may be, after considering all the factors mandated by this Act."
[25] Section 57 of the National Transport Act 5 of 2009 states that: -

14
"(1) Where an application is made to the National Public Transport Regulator for the
granting, renewal, amendment or transfer of an operating license in respect of a
non-contracted service other than a tourist transport service, it may grant or refuse it
after having considered-
(a) in the case of a service shown in an integrated transport plan, the directions of
the planning authority submitted in terms of section 55.
(b) whether the vehicle or type of vehicle by means of which the service is operated,
is suitable for that purpose.
(c) the availability of ranks, terminals or other facilities, based on the
recommendations of the relevant planning authority or other information at its
disposal.
(d) the existence of any relevant by-law, regulation, prohibition, limitation or
restriction.
(e) whether the applicant has any previous conviction for an offence relevant to the
operation of public transport services, or of a prescribed type; and
(f) the ability of the applicant to operate the service for which the operating license is
sought, in a manner satisfactory to the public.
(3) Where an application is made to a Provincial Regulatory Entity for the granting,
renewal, amendment or transfer of an operating license in respect of a non­
contracted service, it-
( a) must refuse the application, if granting it would be contrary to the directions of the
relevant planning authority or authorities based on their integrated transport plan; or
(b) may grant or refuse it after having considered the matters listed in subsection
(2)(b).

15
(6) Such a condition may state a maximum number of passengers that may be
carried in the vehicle, even if the capacity of the vehicle is greater.
[26] Section 58 of the National Transport Act 5 of 2009 states that: -
"(1) The holder of an operating license issued by a regulatory entity, may apply to
whichever of those entities that issued the license for renewal, amendment or
transfer of the operating license.
(2) Where an operating license or permit was issued by a provincial operating
licensing board or other competent entity before the date of commencement of this
Act, the holder may apply for renewal, amendment or transfer thereof to the relevant
entity contemplated in section 54, but, in the case of a permit, an operating license
must be issued if the application is granted.
(3) Where amendment of the operating license or permit only involves substituting a
different vehicle with the same capacity or less, section 73 applies.
(4) A person applying to take transfer of an operating license or permit must have
the written consent of the current holder of the operating license or permit, or of that
holder's executor."
[27] Section 90 of the National Transport Act of 2009 states that: -
"(1) A person is guilty of an offence-
(a) if that person operates a public transport service in contravention of section 50
(meaning without an operating license).
(b) if the person operates a public transport service contrary to the terms and
conditions of an operating license or permit.

16
(c) if, being the holder of an operating license or permit or the agent or employee of
such a holder, the person allows someone else to use that operating license or
permit for a vehicle other than the vehicle specified therein.
(2) Where a person is convicted of any one of the offences mentioned in-
(a) paragraphs (a), (b), (d), (e) or (o) of subsection (1), a term of imprisonment not
exceeding two years, or a fine not exceeding R100 000, may be imposed."
Dispute of fact
[28] Rule 6 (5) (g) of the Uniform Rules of Court provides that: -
"Where an application cannot properly be decided on affidavit the court may dismiss
the application or make such order as to it seems meet with a view to ensuring a just
and expeditious decision. In particular, but without affecting the generality of the
afore going, it may direct that oral evidence be heard on specific issues with a view
to resolving any dispute of fact and to that end may order any deponent to appear
personally or grant leave for him or any other person to be subpoenaed to appear
and be examined and cross-examined as a witness or it may refer the matter to trial
with appropriate directions as to pleadings or definition of issues, or otherwise."
ANALYSIS
Non-joinder
[29] The taxi industry currently operates under the National Land Transport Act. No. 5 of
2009, which regulates and governs the transportation of passengers for reward and
whose objective is to provide for the transformation and restructuring of the national

17
land transport system. The National Road Traffic Act, No. 93 of 1996, which
provides for road traffic matters and applies uniformly throughout the Republic and
for matters connected therewith. also governs the taxi industry.
[30] The Department of Transport is responsible for the regulation and coordination of
transportation (including taxi transportation) in South Africa. The South African
National Taxi Council (SANTACO) is the governing structure of the taxi industry.
[31] South Africa has experienced a great deal of conflict and instability in the taxi
industry over the last decades, which has resulted in violence on many occasions
across different provinces. It is clear from the history provided for by the Applicant.
that Zebediela and its surrounding areas have been hit by this violence several
times. The Applicants reiterate the fear of further violence in its founding affidavit
when it states: -
"In the meantime, the respondents and their cohorts are contravening the law,
creating fear amongst members of the applicants and threats to the safety of the
passengers, threatening the livelihood and economic benefits of the members of the
applicants. The respondents have vowed to operate their minibus taxis in our
allocated routes without operating licenses and/or permits. They started by invading
our routes, followed by illegal operations thereby stealing our customers and
depriving our members of their income ...... as this will lead to bloodshed and
innocent passengers will also be affected. It is also in public interests that this
behaviour and/or action by the respondents be interdicted. Our province, more
specifically the residents of Zebediela and the surrounding villages, have
experienced serious taxi violence in the past in which people lost their lives,
including innocent bystanders and it is of paramount importance that this
Honourable Court intervene and interdict the unlawful actions by the respondents to
avoid unnecessary taxi violence."

avoid unnecessary taxi violence."
[32] It is not in dispute that the Department of Transport (Limpopo) has already become
involved in the quarrel between the parties and has attempted to resolve it. From
the Applicant's founding affidavit. it appears that the situation has become unstable

18
and that unrest and violence may be imminent. This may fall under the ambit of
section 91 of the National Transport Act 5 of 2009 and require the MEC for
Transport (Limpopo's) intervention. Section 91 implies that the MEC for Transport,
through her department, may mediate the disputes giving rise to the instability and/or
unrest and/or violence and issue temporary operating licenses during a temporary
closure referred to in the section.
[33] Section 91 of the National Transport Act 5 of 2009 suggests that the MEC for
Transport (Limpopo) has a direct and substantial interest in the taxi i ndustry in
instances where there is instability. An order made in terms of the Notice of Motion
prefixed to the application may result in further taxi unrest within the Zebediela
region, in which event that MEC for Transport (Limpopo) may implement the
provisions of Section 91.
[34] Furthermore, the relief sought and prayer 3 of the Notice of Motion may prejudice
the LEBOWAKGOMO TAXI ASSOCIATION. In terms of prayer 3, the Applicant
seeks an order that: -
"That the First to the Seventh Respondents are interdicted and restrained from
ferrying passengers from any other routes falling within the operational jurisdiction of
the applicant and its members."
[35] The Seventh Respondents refer to "Unknown Persons", which imply "any other
person operating a taxi that is not the First to the Sixth Respondent." This would be
LEBOWAKGOMO TAXI ASSOCIATION. Prayer 3, in essence, calls for exclusivity
or a monopoly over certain taxi routes. If this order is made, it would prevent the
Department of Transport (Limpopo) from issuing any other licenses in respect of

19
certain routes, or other taxi operators from applying for licenses for those routes.
This would violate the right of other operators to trade, and the Department of
Transport's duty of fulfilling their mandate in terms of the National Transport Act 5 of
2009. A failure to join the LEBOWAKGOMO TAXI ASSOCIATION and the MEC for
Transport (Limpopo) have a direct interest in the outcome of the litigation and it is
prejudicial to them if they are not joined.
[36] The Department of Transport (Limpopo) must be joined as a party to the
proceedings as well as the LEBOWAKGOMO TAXI ASSOCIATION and any other
taxi association operating within the Zebediela Region. Having regard to the
principle embodied in Turner and Another v Ntintelo and Another and Skhosana
and Others v Roos tla Roos se Oord and Others should accordingly be struck
from the roll and not dismissed. The Constitution of the South African National Taxi
Council (SANTACO) was not made available to this court and does not seem to be
easily accessible, however the parties may want to obtain a copy thereof and
consider it to ascertain to what extent it may have a real and substantial interest in
the matter and if so, also join them as a party to the proceedings.
Clear right
[37] Even if this court did not find that there was a non-joinder; I am not convinced that
the Applicant has established a clear right. This is the first element that needs to be
proven in applications for a final interdict. If a clear right cannot be established, the
application cannot succeed and stands to be dismissed.

20
[38] As per the National Transport Act 5 of 2009, a taxi driver may not operate a taxi
without an operating license, and it is an offence to do so. The problem that t he
Applicant has is that it has not attached the operating licenses on which it relies to its
affidavit. The Applicant refers to the operating licenses that are attached to its
affidavit and marked "UZT2", however no such document is attached. Without a
copy of the licenses depicting the name, date of issue, designated route, ect, the
Applicant cannot be said to have proven that it has a clear right. This was probably
an oversight on the part of the Applicant; however, it will have to rectify this if the
matter is to be heard again.
Dispute of fact
[39] There is a dispute of fact between the parties insofar as the agreement emanating
from the merger and the discussions with the Department of Transport (Limpopo) is
concerned. If the matter is enrolled for hearing, the matter may need to be dealt with
in accordance with Rule 6 (5) (g) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
ORDER
[40] I accordingly make the following order: -
[40.1] The application is struck from roll due to the non-joinder of the MEC for
Transport and Community Safety (Limpopo) and the LEBOWAKGOMO
TAXI ASSOCIATION and any other taxi association operating within
the Zebediela Region.

21
[40.2] That the applicant pay for the wasted costs on Scale B.
APPEARANCES
BURNETT, E J
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT,
POLOKWANE ; LIMPOPO DIVISION
FOR THE APPLICANT: - Mr. J L Rahlagane
INSTRUCTED BY: - J.L RAHLAGANE ATTORNEYS
FOR THE RESPONDENTS:- Mr. A A Milazi
INSTRUCTED BY:- MILAZI A INCORPORATED
DATE OF HEARING: - 30 DECEMBER 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT: - 5 JANUARY 2026

Back to Law Reports