SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in
compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 2025-227233
(1) REPORTABLE:
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
(3) REVISED.
DATE 26/01/2026
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
BRIMA LOGISTICS (PTY) LIMITED Applicant
and
ROAD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CORPORATION Respondent
___________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
___________________________________________________________________
MBONGWE, J:
INTRODUCTION
[1] The applicant, Brim a (Pty) Ltd (“Brim a”), brought this application against the
respondent on urgency in terms of R ule 6(12), seeking the undermentioned
orders in relation to the cessation of its courier services to the respondent:
1.1 Declaratory relief confirming that the letter of its appointment by the
respondent dated 02 April 2024 and the acceptance thereof dated 10 April
2024 constitute the agreement between the applicant and the respondent
for the appointment of the latter as a service provider to render courier
services to the respondent for a period of three years in terms of tender
RTMC BID09/2023/24;
1.2 The pricing and standardi sation agreement reached on 03 June 2024, and
confirmed in the letter of 24 June 2024 , constitutes the agreed pricing as
between the applicant and the respondent arising out of the main
agreement.
1.3 The formally signed and completed SBD 7.2 dated 30th October 2024 , was
duly transmitted by the applicant to the respondent on 30 October 2024, and
forms part of the main agreement.
1.4 That the applicant has unequivocally fulfilled all conditions precedent
contained in the letter of appointment.
1.4.1 Mandatory relief directing the respondent to sign a Service Level
Agreement (SLA) within 5 days of this order , which SLA should
incorporate:
1.4.1.1 The scope of work per tender RTMC BID09/2023/ 24.
1.4.1.2 The terms of the letter of appointment dated 2 April 2024.
1.4.1.3 Pricing and standardisation, as per the pricing and
standardisation agreement reached on 03 June 2024 and
confirmed in the letter dated 24 June 2024.
1.4.1.4 The terms of the signed and completed SBD 7.2 dated 30
October 2024.
1.4.2 Specific performance directing the respondent to comply with the
terms of the signed SLA for the allocation of courier services to be
done in accordance with the pricing and standardisation agreement
reached on 03 June 2024, and confirmed in the letter dated 24 June
2024, within 5 days of this order, subject to the following conditions:
1.4.2.1 The applicant be allowed access to the respondent ’s
offices situated at 1[...] A[...] Street, Zwartkop, Centurion,
0[…], Gauteng Province, and allocated an office from
which to operate and set up a server , within 5 days of this
order.
1.4.2.2 The applicant be allowed a further period of 14 working
days from the date of granting of such access to relocate
its furniture and server in preparation for the resumption of
courier services.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
[2] The Road Traffic Management advertised a tender for courier services. Brima
was one of the successful bidders and was granted access to Transnet’s
computer network to monitor and receive assignments. Allocations commenced
in July 2024.
[3] On 2 October 2024, Brima’s delivery services were suspended following
complaints of poor performance. In the same month, the respondent advised
the applicant that there was no service contract between them. In its heads of
argument, the respondent emphasises this point stating that ‘’The conclusion of
an SLA (Service Level Agreement) is a sine qua non for the commencement of
services, and this was never signed.’’ The Applicant insists that a contract
exists and made reference to invoices it had issued and t he substantial
payments it had received from the respondent for the services. According to the
Respondent, the services concerned were rendered during the trial stages, and
the Applicant fell short of meeting its targets.
[4] By December 2024, no work was being allocated to the Respondent.
[5] Brima launched this urgent application on 24 November 2025.
OPPOSITION
A. Points in limine
[6] The respondent contended that Brima has failed to satisfy the requirements
for urgency under Rule 6(12).
[7] The respondent further contended that Brima’s seeking of final relief in motion
proceedings in circumstances was the matter is knowingly saturated with
material disputes of fact was misconceived.
B. Defences
[8]. The Respondent opposes the application on the grounds that it:
8.1 denies that any contract exists between the applicant and the
respondent for the provision of courier services emanating from tender
RTMC BID09/2023/24.
8.2 denies that there was a final agreement on pricing and standardisation
between the applicant and the respondent.
8.3 denies that the applicant has performed the Courier services under
RTMC BID09/2023/24 satisfactorily and in accordance with the
conditions precedent.
8.4 avers that both the declaratory and specific performance orders are final
in nature and inappropriate where material factual disputes incapable of
being resolved on the papers exist.
8.5 contends that an alternative remedy in the form of a claim for damages
is appropriate and available to the applicant.
[9] The principle in Plascon -Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd
applies: where disputes of fact exist, the respondent’s version must generally
be accepted, unless palpably implausible. 1 On the papers, the disputes raised
by the respondent cannot be rejected as untenable.
ANALYSIS
[10] The mandatory reli efs sought in paragraph s [1.4.2.1] and [1.4.2.2], being
orders directing the respondent to co -operate with the applicant by
accommodating it in its premises and giving it access to its computer network,
in circumstances where the relationship between the parties has irretrievably
broken down, constitutes reliefs that courts are not inclined to grant.2
THE LAW
URGENCY
[11] Rule 6(12) requires that an applicant demonstrate circumstances justifying
deviation from the ordinary rules and procedures3.
[12] Brima contends that its business operations are severely prejudiced by the
1 Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd 1984 (3) SA 623 (A) at 634H–635C.
2 Hayens v King Williams Town Municipality 1951(2) SA (A) at 375 G -H.
3 Rule 6(12)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
termination and denial of access to the computer system.
[13] The respondent argues that Brim a has alternative remedies in the ordinary
course, including damages or a contractual claim, and that no irreparable
harm justifying urgent intervention has been shown.
[14] Commercial inconvenience or financial prejudice does not, without more,
constitute urgency4.
CONCLUSION
[15] The availability of an alternative relief, which is the only viable avenue open to
the Applicant, coupled with the undesirability for the court to compel one party
to a feud to cooperate with the other , as in the circumstances of this case ,
constitute sound grounding for the dismissal of this application.
COSTS
[16] The general rule that costs follow the outcome applies.
ORDER
[17] The following order is made:
1. The application is dismissed.
2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application, including
the costs of two counsel.
4 Luna Meubel Vervaardigers (Edams) Bpk v Makin and Another (t/a Makin’s Furniture Manufacturers) 1977
(4) SA 135 (W) at 137F–H.
__________________________
MPN MBONGWE
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION
PRETORIA
APPEARANCES
For the Applicant Adv S Tisani
Instructed by Mbebe-Tisani Incorporated
For the Respondent Adv BL Makola SC
with Adv TD Ngokane
and Adv L Malefane
Instructed by MB Mabunda Incorporated
Date of hearing: 11 December 2025
Date of judgement: 26 January 2026
THIS JUDGEMENT WAS ELECTRONICALLY TRANSMITTED TO THE PARTIES’
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND UPLOADED ONTO CASELINE ON 2 6
JANUARY 2026.