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)
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER
JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
DATE:
SIGNATURE
Case No. 2023/128106
In the consolidated matters between:
ENERGI LICENCES (PTY) LTD Applicant
and
THE CONTROLLER OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS First Respondent
KHAZAMULA PROPERTIES (PTY) LTD Second Respondent
NKANGALA DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY Third Respondent
THEMBISILE HANI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Fourth Respondent
MEC FOR AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT Fifth Respondent
LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS FOR THE
PROVINCE OF MPUMALANGA
NDZUNDZA MABHOKO TRADITIONAL COUNCIL Sixth Respondent
AND
Case No. 2026/036574
2
KHAZAMULA PROPERTIES Applicant
and
THE CONTROLLER OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS First Respondent
THE MINISTER OF MINERAL AND PETROLEUM Second Respondent
RESOURCES
JUDGMENT
The judgment and order are published and distributed electronically.
Summary: Two review applications with same subject matter (decisions by Controller of
Petroleum Products to issue/extend/cancel a licence) consolidated. Held that review must be
conducted in terms of PAJA and not as a legality review , and that applicant cannot choose
pathway to review . Applicant in first application failed to exhaust remedy in terms of section
12A of Petroleum Products Act (PPA) and failed to apply for leave to review in terms of section
7(2)(c) of PAJA. Held that, in absence of application envisaged in section 7(2) (c) of PAJA, court
is statutorily prohibited by virtue of section 7(2)(a) of PAJA to conduct a review.
In second application, held that Controller of Petroleum products failed to comply with
Regulation 29(2)(a) and (b) of GNR 286 of 27 March 2006 (“Regulation”) which renders notice
to cancel unlawful and subject to review under section 6(2) of PAJA.
Further held that extension granted by Controller in terms of Regulation 24(2) after date of
expiry of 12 months period in Regulation 24(1) is not a nullity as Controller has wide power
under provisions of Regulations and must consider objects of PPA. Cancellation of retail licence
by controller reviewed and set aside.
PA VAN NIEKERK, J
3
INTRODUCTION:
[1] On 25 February 2026 Mi llar J granted the following order (“the consent order”) by
agreement between the parties in three different applications:
“1. The following matters are allocated to be heard simultaneously 2023/128106; and
2026/036574 on 23rd and 24th of March 2026;
2. Papers be exchanged between the parties in the following manner:
2.1 that the 4th Respondent (Khazamula) file its Supplementary Founding Affidavit, if
any, in the matter under case number 2026/036574 by the 3rd of March 2026;
2.2 that the Applicant (Energi) and Khazamula file their respective Answering
Affidavits under case number 2026/036574 (Energi) and 2023/128106
(Khazamula) by the 6 March 2026;
2.3 that Khazamula and Energi file their respective replying affidavits under
2026/036574 and 2023/128106 by the 13 March 2026;
2.4 that Khazamula and Energi file their respective Heads of Argument on 18 March
2026;
3. Costs in respect of case number 2025/178946 for the 25 February 2026 are reserved for
determination by the Court on the date mentioned above”.
[2] The application under case no. 2023/128106 was brought by Energi Licences (Pty)Ltd
and seeks to review certain decisions of The Controller of Petroleum Products in
4
relation to a retail licence granted to Khazamula Properties (Pty) Ltd (“the Energi
review”). The application under case no. 2026/036574 was brought by Khazamula
Properties (Pty)Ltd and seeks to review the cancellation of the same licence granted by
the Controller of Petroleum Products to Khazamula Properties (“the Khazamula
review”). The parties agreed to the terms of the consent order and for the matters to be
allocated and heard simultaneously because the parties in both applications are
materially the same parties and the subject matter of the two review applications are
materially the same.
[3] Paragraph 3 of the consent order relates to the costs of an urgent application which
Energi Licences (Pty) Ltd brought against inter alia Sasol Oil (Pty) Ltd and Khazamula
Properties (Pty) Ltd, seeking an interdict against the aforesaid entities to prevent the
operation of a retail fuel supply business pending finalisation of the two review
applications. It is common cause that the merits of that urgent application are irrelevant
for purposes of the two review applications and that the reserved costs of that urgent
application should follow the results of the review applications referred to infra.
[4] As transpires from paragraph 2 of the consent order the parties agreed on a timeline for
the filing of further affidavits in both applications, and the matter was set down as a
special motion court matter with an estimated duration of 2 days.
[5] In the answering affidavit to be filed by Khazamula Properties (Pty) Ltd envisaged in
paragraph 2.2 of the consent order, and after the consent order was made, a counter
application instituted by Khazamula was incorporated in terms whereof an order is
sought that Energi Licences (Pty) Ltd be ordered to vacate the property on which it
5
presently conducts business and further that a final interdict be granted against Energi
Licences (Pty) Ltd prohibiting it from operating a fuel filling station or any commercial
activity on the property which it presently occupies . An order is also sought that Energi
Licences (Pty) Ltd be ordered to demolish “ ….. unlawful structures erected on the
Remaining Extent of Portion 5 of the Farm Vlaklaagte 221 JR, Mpumalanga within a
period of 30 days …” . This counter application is premised on various grounds including
an alleged failure of Energi Licences (Pty) Ltd to have procured a legal right to occupy
the relevant premises, an alleged fail ure to procure the necessary land use rights in
terms of the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, 16 of 2013 and the
relevant municipal bylaw and t own planning scheme, and an alleged fail ure to procure
the approval of building plans in terms of the National Building Regulations and Building
Standards Act, as result of which it is alleged that the present occupation and
conducting of business by any Energi Licences (Pry) Ltd is unlawful.
[6] Energi brought an application to be joined as a respondent in the Khazamula review
and an order that the affidavit which it filed in support of its review application under
case no. 2023/128106 stand as its answering affidavit in the application under case no.
2026/036574.
THE PARTIES:
[7] Energi Licences (Pty) Ltd ( hereinafter referred to as “ Energi”) is a private company
incorporated in terms of the Laws of the Republic of South Africa which conducts
business as a licenced retailer of petroleum products ( a petrol station) at the
intersection of the R […] and R […] roads in B […] , V [… ]e, Mpumalanga (“ the Energi
6
premises”). Energi took over this business from Ethimna Service Station CC (“Ethimna”)
which retained the site licence but transferred the retail licence to Energi in terms of due
process applied in terms of the applicable law and regulations referred to infra. Energi
is the applicant in the review application under case no. 2023/128106 (the Energi
review) and seeks to be joined as respondent in the review application under case no.
2026/036575 (the Khazamula review).
[8] Khazamula Properties(Pty)Ltd (hereinafter referred to “ Khazamula”) is a private
company registered in terms of the Laws of the Republic of South Africa which
constructed a petrol filling station (under a Sasol brand franchise) on Erf 2[ …]
Buhlebesizwe Extension 2 in terms of a site licence issued to it, and a retail licence to
sell petroleum products was issued to Khazamula, which licence certificate is dated 20
April 2021. The Energi site is situated on the opposite side of the R573 where it
intersects the R544 as result of which Energi and Khazamula are direct competitors in
the retail of petroleum products in that area. Khazamula is the applicant in the review
under case number 2026/036574 )the Khazamula review).
[9] The Controller of Petroleum Products (“the Controller”) is an official appointed in terms
of section 3(a) and bestowed with delegated power in terms of section 2B of the
Petroleum Products Act No. 120 of 1977 (“PPA”), and who is tasked to issue licences in
accordance with the provisions of PPA. The C ontroller was joined as the First
Respondent in the Energi review and was also joined as the First Respondent in the
Khazamula review as the responsible official who issued the impugned retail licence in
terms of PPA and who made the impugned decisions which are the subject of both
review applications.
7
[10] The Minister of Mineral and Petroleum Resources (“the Minister”) was joined as Second
Respondent in the Khazamula review in his official capacity by virtue of the fact that an
appeal in terms of section 12A of PPA forms the subject of a review in the Khazamula
review was dismissed by the Minister.
[11] Other respondents were joined by Energi in the Energi review whose particulars
appears from the heading of this judgment. Neither the Controller, nor the Minister or
any of those respondents opposed this application and t he Controller and Minister filed
notices to abide by the decision of this court.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
[12] From the contents of the consent order , the introduction, and the description of the
parties as set out supra it follows that the matters before this court are:
[12.1] The Energi review application which only Khazamula oppose and wherein
Khazamula brought a counter application for eviction and interdictory relief;
[12.2] The Khazamula review application in which Energi seeks to be joined as a
respondent, being the only party opposing such review;
[12.3] The costs of the urgent application referred to in paragraph 3 of the consent
order.
[13] Energi applies for the consolidation of the Energi - and Khazamula reviews on the basis
that it will be convenient to the parties and to the court, because the subject matter of
both applications (the issue of a retail licence to Khazamula as well as the grant of an
8
extension of that licence to Khazamula) are the same in both applications and the
parties who are actively pursuing the litigation in both parties, being Energi and
Khazamula, are the same. Counsel for Khazamula informed the court during argument
that the application for consolidation is not opposed on the premise that the merits for
the urgent application referred to in paragraph 3 of the consent order does not form part
of the issues before this court.
[14] After some debate it was clear that it is common cause that the costs of that urgent
application should follow the event of this application. The only objection raised by
Khazamula to the application for consolidation therefore fell away and in my view it is
convenient for this court as well as the parties to consolidate the two review
applications. As a result I ordered a consolidation of the matters and this order will be
reflected in the order that follows on this judgment. The joinder of Energi in the
Khazamula review was not opposed, but in my view it is not necessary to make any
order in that respect by virtue of the order for consilidation of the two review
applications.
[15] Insofar as the counter application for the eviction of Energi and further interdictory relief
are concerned, counsel acting on behalf of Energi submitted in heads of argument that
the introduction of that application at this stage, in the context of the consent order
which did not provide for such a new application, is an abuse of the process and that
the application should be dismissed. After hearing counsel for Khazamula I made an
order that the counter application be postponed sine die, inter alia for the following
reasons:
9
[15.1] This matter was enrolled as a special motion before this court in terms of
the consent order against the background of the parties being involved in a
dispute regarding the validity of a retail licence issued to Khazamula and
which requires an expeditious resolution. The consent order clearly does
not provide for the introduction of a further dispute on a completely different
cause of action which only serves to obfuscate the issues that requires
expeditious resolution;
[15.2] Counsel acting on behalf of Khazamula argued that the facts underlying the
cause of action in the counter application are also relevant insofar as a point
in limine was taken by Khazamula against the locus standi of Energi to bring
a review application against t he Controller in relation to a retail licence
issued to Khazamula. In essence, this point of locus standi is based on the
averment that Energi is occupying and conducting business from its
premises unlawfully, and therefore has no locus standi to bring the review
application. In my view it is common cause that Energi is a licenced retailer
of petroleum products, in competition with Khazamula, and therefore has a
direct and substantial interest in the application; whether Energi occupies
the site unlawfully thus do not require determination for purposes of the
review applications. In any event, the finding which I make hereunder
renders this issue moot.
[15.3] The procedure followed by Khazamula of introducing a substantial counter
application based on an entirely different cause of action which entails an
investigation into numerous transactions relating to the sub- division of land,
10
transfer of land, grant of land rights and change of title is a factually
complicated issue. The determination of that issue is further complicated by
the state of the pleadings where the court is required to have to proverbially
troll through various different sets of affidavits in different applications in
order to make sense of the underlying factual allegations and supporting
documentation;
[15.4] There is no reason why that counter application (which was only introduced
on 6 March 2026) cannot be entertained in the normal course as a separate
issue without the substantial inconvenience caused by such counter
application to this court and Energi.
BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION:
[16] On 3 August 2010 Ethimna was issued a retail licence by the Controller in terms of PPA
which was subsequently transferred to Energi as Licence No. R/2021/0115 on 20 April
2021. Since 2010 Ethimna and thereafter Energi conducted business as a petrol station
for the retail of petroleum products from the Energi site.
[17] On 20 February 2021 t he Controller approved an application for a retail licence by
Khazamula whereafter the required licence fees were paid on 8 March 2021 and on 20
April 2021 the licence certificate was issued by t he Controller under licence no.
S/2021/0017 to Khazamula in terms whereof Khazamula was licenced to sell petroleum
products including LPG used for the propulsion of vehicles, petrol and diesel from the
Khazamula site. This licence relates to Erf [ …] , cnr R […] M[…] o Road and R […] V[…]
Road, B[…] , V[…] , Mpumalanga.
11
[18] In terms of the contents of an affidavit deposed to by an official of the Controller, the
Khazamula licence was collected on the 26 th of August 2022. It was confirmed that the
Controller, at that time, interpreted PPA and the regulations to the effect that the date of
collection of the retail licence was deemed to be the date of issue of the licence.
[19] On 5 May 2023 Khazamula requested an extension of the licence in terms of regulation
24(2) of the regulations regarding petroleum products, site and retail licences published
in Government Notice 286 of 27 March 2006 (“ the regulations”) and this request for an
extension was approved by t he Controller on 7 August 2023 in terms of a
recommendation which reads:
“It is therefore recommended that t he Controller of petroleum products approves the
extension applied for a period of 6 months after the date on which the Controller has
raised signs (sic) the attached approval letter to be sent to Khazamula Properties
(Pty) Ltd, licence no. S2021/0017 and R/2021/0048 (annexure ‘C’).”
[20] It is common cause that this approval would have lapsed on 28 February 2024, which
means that in terms of regulation 24(1) the licence would lapse if Khazamula failed to
have commenced with retail activities on that date.
[21] On 2 October 2023 (less than 2 months after the 6 month extension was granted and
some 4 months before the date of lapse being 28 February 2024) Khazamula was
provided with a notice to surrender the retail licences(“ the surrender notice”) and
notification that the site licence is consequently invalid. The surrender notice is clearly a
notice in terms of Regulation 30(2) and prior to this notice, on the common cause facts,
12
the Controller did not employ the provisions of Regulation 29(1) and/or Regulation
29(2). The surrender notice reads as follows:
“NOTICE TO SURRENDER RETAIL LICENCE: R/2021/0048 IN TERMS OF REGUALTION
30(2) OF THE REGULATIONS REGARDING PETROLEUM PRODUCTS SITE AND RETAIL
LICENCES PUBLISHED BY GOVERNMENT NOTICE NO. R286 OF 27 MARCH 2006
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations’)
1. It has come to the attention of The Controller of Petroleum Products (‘The Controller’)
that the licensed entity, KHAZAMULA PROPERTIES (PTY) LTD has since the
issuance of the retail licence: R/2021/0048 on August 2022, not commenced with
retailing activities at the corresponding licensed site within a period of 12 months or
such extended period as contemplated in regulation 24 of the Regulations.
2. Regulation 24 of the Regulations provides as follows:
‘24 Commencement and continuation of business under retail licence-
(1) A licensed retailed must commence with retailing activities at the
corresponding licensed site within a period of 12 months after the dat e on
which a retail licence is issued to the licensee, failing which the licence
shall lapse.
(2) The Controller may, upon application in writing, extend the period
contemplated in subregulation 1 for a consecutive period of six months for
a total period not exceeding 18 months.
13
(3) The Controller may request the information necessary from the Applicant,
concerning an application contemplated in subregulation 2’.
3. The licensee is therefore in contravention of the abovementioned Regulation, and
according to our records and to the best knowledge of the Controller, no application for
extension with a consecutive period of six months was ever lodged with the Controller
and had the licensee lodged such extension it could have been expired in February
2024. Therefore, the retail licence has lapsed ex lege (by operation of law) and this
also has a corollary effect on the site licence.
4. Regulation 30 of the Regulations provides thus:
’30 Termination of a licence-
(1) A licence ceases to be valid if-
(a) the licence is surrendered to the Controller;
(b) the licence is cancelled by the Controller in accordance with regulation
29(2); or
(c) the licensed activity is no longer a going concern.
(2) If a licence has ceased to be valid, the licensee must surrender the licence to
the Controller within a period of 14 days from the date of receipt of the
notification in which the licensee is informed that the licence is no longer valid’.
5. Section 28(3)(c) of the Act provides:
14
‘(3) any licence issued by the Controller of Petroleum Products remains valid for as
long as-
(c) in the case of a site, there is a corresponding valid retail licence.’
6. In terms of section 28(3)(c) of the Act, the site licence remains valid for as long as
there is a corresponding valid retail licence. The site licence, issued to KHAZAMULA
PROPERTIES (PTY) LTD nder licencue number: S/2021/0017 is, due to the lapsing
and invalidity of the retail licence, also concomitantly invalid.
7. In light of the above, and in accordance with Regulation 30(2) of the Regulations, you
are hereby notified that the retail licence has lapsed and is therefore no longer valid
and this has a corollary effect on the site licence. You are hereby called upon to
surrender the retail licence within a period of 14 days of receipt of this Notice.
Yours sincerely”.
[22] On 27 October 2023 an inspector who signed the surrender notice addressed a further
email to Khazamula stating as follows:
“I am hereby inclined to rescind my notice I served you regarding the lapse of the licence”.
[23] This rescission followed after an official in the section “ Petroleum Legal Compliance
and Enforcements”, a certain Mr Mosikidi , addressed an internal email to the inspector
who signed the surrender notice which reads:
15
“Your complaint dated 4 September 2023 has reference, KHAZAMULA PROPERTIES (PTY)
LTD, Licence No. R/2021/0048’s commencement date has been extended for a further 6 months
ending 28 February 2024, therefore the retail licence has not lapsed and is still valid”.
[24] On 4 December 2023 the Energi review application was issued and the attorney acting
on behalf of Energi engaged in correspondence with the Department of Mineral
Resources and Energy , inter alia regarding the issue of the validity of the extension of
the Khazamula retail licence. It was contended on behalf of Energi that the extension
approved in terms of regulation 24(2) on 7 August 2023 was ultra vires because the
retail licence was issued on 20 February 2021 and has thus lapsed ex lege during
February 2022, long before the extension was applied for or approved.
[25] On 21 October 2025 the Controller addressed a notice of cancellation of a retail licence
(“the cancellation notice”) to Khazamula, which is materially similar to the surrender
notice dated 2 October 2023, except for the fact that the date of issue of the retail
licence in paragraph 1 of the notice to surrender recorded the date to be “ February
2021” (without specifying a date), whereas the date of issue recorded in the
cancellation notice dated 2 October 2023 refers to that date as “17 August 2022”. It is
clear that the Controller had a change of opinion on the interpretation of PPA and
Regulations which caused the inspector to “backdate” the date of issue of the impugned
retail licence from 17 August 2022 to February 2021. This “backdating” by the controller
caused serious complications for Khazamula, because it had the effect (on the case
advanced by Energi and the subsequent actions of the Controller) to render the
extension granted to Khazamula on 7 August 2023 to be unlawful as it was granted
long after the retail licence lapsed by virtue of the provisions of Regulation 24(1). From
16
paragraph 6 of the notice to surrender it appears that Khazamula addressed
correspondence to the inspector on 4 April 2024, disputing the allegation that
Khazamula did not commence with retail activities on 28 February 2024, and further
provided supporting facts to indicate that Khazamula was engaged in retail activities.
[26] The cancellation notice dated 21 October 2025 reads as follows:
“Dear Sir
CANCELLATION OF RETAIL LICENCE NUMBER R/2021/0048 UNDER THE NAME
KHAZAMULA PROPERTIES (PTY) LTD IN TERMS OF REGUALTION 24, 29(1)(2) AND
30(1)(b) OF REGULATIONS REGARDING PETROLEUM PRODUCTS SITE AND RETAIL
LICENCES PUBLISHED BY GOVERNMENT NOTICE NO. R286 OF 27 MARCH 2006
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations’).
1. The Controller of Petroleum Products (‘The Controller’) office was made aware of
Khazamula Properties (Pty) Ltd’s (‘Khazamula’) failure to commence retailing within 12
months from the date retail licence no. R/2021/0048 issued on 17 August 2022,
extended for a further period ending 28 February 2024.
2. On 5 May 2023 Khazamula requested the Controller to extend the period to
commence with retailing activities which was granted.
3. Khazamula was granted a further six months to commence with retailing activities from
28 August 2023 to 28 February 2024.
17
4. On 28 February 2023 DMPR Inspector conducted a site inspection where Khazamula
was supposed to have been retailing and found that there were no retailing activities
taking place at the relevant site.
5. A notice to surrender retail licence no. R2021/0048 was served on Khazamula on 01
March 2024 and the latter was instructed to surrender the retail licence within 14 days
from the date of issue but railed to do so.
6. On 04 March 2024 Khazamula responded to the notice to surrender wherein the
following was stated:
‘The non-compliance to Regulation 24 of the Regulations was disputed, as Khazamula
duly complied with the licence obligations and submitted the annual information
required and on the same date receipt of the information was acknowledged by the
Office of the Controller.
23 000 litres of diesel have been sold and 10 000 litres on site continue to sell as a
result of the installation of a diesel tanker at great costs and the construction at site is
ongoing.’
7. Khazamula has contravened Regulation 24 of the Regulations which states the
following:
(1) A licensed retailer must commence with retailing activities at the corresponding
licensed site within a period of 12 months after the date on which a retail licence
is issued to the licensee, failing which the licence shall lapse.’
18
8. After careful consideration of the findings made by the DMPR Inspector and all the
available documents before me regarding this matter, I herein cancel retail licence
number R/2021/0048 in terms of Regulation 29(1)(s) and 30(1)(b) of the Regulations
regarding Petroleum Products Site and Retail Licences for not commencing with
retailing activities as per the licence conditions.
9. Accordingly, retail licence number R/2021/0048 is now invalidated by this Notice and
must be returned to the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (‘DMRE’) with
immediate effect at the address provided above.
10. Regulation 30 of the Regulations states thus: (1) A licence ceases to be valid if –
(a) the licence is surrendered to the Controller;
(b) the licence is cancelled by the Controller in accordance with Regulation 29(2);
(Emphasis); or
(c) the licensed activity is no longer a going concern (Emphasis).
11. Regulation 38(a) of the Regulations states thus: Any licence issued in terms of these
Regulations-
(a) Remains the property of the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy,
(Emphasis).
12. You have a right to lodge internal appeal to Minister Resources and Energy in terms of
section 12A(1) of the PPA as amended. Your appeal should be lodged within 60 days
from date of service of this notice.
19
Yours sincerely,
…………………
MR. TSELISO MAQUBELA
CONTROLLER OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
DATE: 21/10/2025”.
[27] On 29 October 2025 Khazamula launched an internal appeal to the Minister in terms of
section 12A of PPA . That appeal was aimed against the decision of t he Controller to
cancel the retail licence issued to Khazamula as well as the consequential decision by
the Controller to declare the site license to be invalid. In that appeal Khazamula referred
to the pending Energi review application and evidence submitted therein to support the
allegation that Khazamula did not contravene Regulation 24(1) (failure to commence
business before 28 February 2024). T he Minister was provided with evidence in the
form of documents , photographs and an affidavit intended to illustrate that Khazamula
did in fact conduct retail business before 28 February 2024. The appeal was turned
down by the Minister.
THE ENERGI REVIEW:
[28] In the notice of motion under case no. 2023/128106 Energi seeks an order in the
following terms:
20
“1. That the Site and Retail licence rights granted by the 1 st Respondent to the 2 nd
Respondent in respect of the property located at V […] , K[…] , Mpumalanga Province,
also known as Erf [ …] , Corner M […] Road and R [..] V[…] Road, B […] , V [… ], or as
portion 1 or 4 or 5 as the case may be of the Farm Vlaklaagte 221 JR, be reviewed in
terms of Rule 53(sic) and set aside;
2. That the extension of such Site and Retail licence rights granted by the 1st Respondent
to the 2nd Respondent be reviewed in terms of Rule 53(sic) and declared to be null and
void and be set aside.
3. Consequently, to the above, the Site and Retail Licence certificates issued by the 1 st
Respondent to the 2 nd Respondent are declared to be null and void and are to be
returned to the 1st Respondent and cancelled”.
[29] Further relief in the form a declarator and an interdict w ere not proceeded with by
Energi. From a perusal of paragraph 1 of the notice of motion it is clear that Energi
seeks to review the issue of the site- and retail licences by the Controller to Khazamula
and in terms of prayer 2 of the notice of motion it is clear that Energi seeks to review the
extension of the site and retail licence granted by t he Controller to Khazamula. Prayer 3
of the notice of motion is clearly consequential to Energi being successful with the relief
as claimed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the notice of motion.
[30] In support of the review, Energi sets out in its founding affidavit averments intended to
illustrate that Khazamula did not prove and establish that it qualified for licences and
that the Controller therefore had no right to have issued such licences to Khazamula. In
this regard the following submission was made in heads of argument filed on behalf of
Energi namely:
21
“2.2 KHAZAMULA did not prove and establish that it qualified for licences and the
Controller therefore had no right to have granted them i.e. the grant was legally invalid
alternatively that it is reviewable under PAJA;”.
[31] In paragraph 7.1 of the founding affidavit of Energi the following averment is made:
“7.1 The Controller ought to have rejected the licence applications on the grounds that the
applications, on merit, did not qualify for approval in accordance with the criteria
required by ‘law’ in case being the Petroleum Products Act of 1977 as amended (‘the
Act’)”.
[32] The deponent to Energi’s founding affidavit proceeds to aver that there was a duty on
the Controller to determine whether the issue of a licence to Khazamula would
negatively impact the business of Energi and this issue is expand ed as follows in
paragraph 16 of that founding affidavit:
“16. It cannot be disputed that the grant of a licence in any area has an immediate, direct
and obvious impact on existing petrol stations since any trading market is at any
specific time a fixed entity. The closer the new station is to an existing station, the
more immediate the negative impact will be. Hence the criteria of the Act are not
whether there will simply be a negative impact on existing stations but whether
notwithstanding this, there is room for another station; i.e., putting the matter
colloquially, whether the ‘cake’ is big enough for all. The crux of applicant’s case is that
under no circumstances can it ever be rationally held or found that the market place at
the locality in question was or could ever be regarded as capable of sustaining a new
entrant”.
22
[33] In respect to the relief sought in prayer 2 of the notice of motion, the founding affidavit
deposed to on behalf of Energi makes submission relating to the interpretation PPA and
Regulations insofar as the deemed date of the issue of the licence is concerned. The
affidavit deals extensively with different approaches in relation to the deemed date of
issue of the licence, including submissions to counter an argument advanced by
Khazamula that the date of “ issue” is deemed to be the date on which the licence is
collected, and then concludes that the licence has already lapsed in terms of the
provisions of Regulation 24(1) at the time when Khazamula applied for an extension of
the licence and such extension was initially granted by the Controller. Put concisely, it is
the contention of Energy that the grant of the extension by the Controller was unlawful
as the licence has lapsed ex lege, that such extension is therefore null and void, and for
that reason the decision to grant the extension should be declared to be unlawful.
[34] On behalf of Khazamula, three points in limine were raised against the Energi review.
Firstly, a point was raised that Energi lacks locus standi to have instituted the review
proceedings based on the contentions as set out in paragraph [5] supra. Secondly, the
point was raised that Energi has failed to institute the review application without
unreasonable delay as required in terms of section 7(1) of PAJA
1 . Thirdly, the point
was raised that Energi failed to exhaust the available internal remedies provided for in
section 12A of PPA as result of which this court is enjoined not to review such
administrative action because section 7(2) of PAJA prohibits a review in the absence of
an application and finding exceptional circumstances as required under section 7(2)(c)
of PAJA.
1 Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 3 of 2000.
23
[35] In the founding affidavit of the Energi review the deponent avers that Energi was
advised by its legal representatives that the review of the decision of the Controller to
issue a licence to Khazamula is a legality review, but may also be a review in terms of
PAJA, and that the review of the decision to grant an extension of the retail licence in
terms of Regulation 29(2) is a legality review. In heads of argument as well as during
the argument of the matter in court, counsel acting on behalf of Energi persisted therein
that it is not a review under PAJA but a legality review, based on the (startling)
submission that the issue of the licence by the Controller as well as the extension of the
licence constitutes “executive action” which results in a legality review . It was submitted
that those actions by the Controller do not constitute a “decision” as defined in PAJA
and/or that such decisions (if they are decisions) do not have a direct and external
legal effect, affecting the rights of Energi.
[36] It is therefore necessary to determine the applicable pathway to review in relation to the
Energi review, and if found to be the PAJA, whether the points in limine should be
upheld. Should the points of limine be upheld, it is not necessary to deal with the merits
of such review and/or any remedial order.
THE KHAZAMULA REVIEW:
[37] In the notice of motion under case no. 2026/036574 Khazamula seeks the following
relief:
“1. That the finding or decision by the first respondent dated 21 October 2025, in terms of
which the applicant’s retail licence issued by the Department Mineral Resources and
Energy (number R2021/0048) was cancelled, be reviewed and set aside.
24
2. That the decision by the second respondent dated 15 January 2026, in terms of which
the finding or decision was taken by the second respondent that the applicant’s retail
licence issued by the Department Mineral Resources and Energy (number
R2021/0048) has lapsed ex lege, be reviewed and set aside;
3. That the decision by the second respondent dated 15 January 2026, in terms of which
the finding or decision was taken by the second respondent that the applicant’s site
licence issued by the Department Mineral Resources and Energy (number
S/2021/0017) is invalid, be reviewed and set aside;
4. That is be declared that the applicant’s retail licence issued by the Department Mineral
Resources and Energy (number R2021/0048) and site licence issued by the
Department Mineral Resources and Energy (number S/2021/0017) have not lapsed
and remains valid and of full force and effect”.
[38] In the founding affidavit in support of the Khazamula review as well as in heads of
argument filed on behalf of Khazamula, and during argument of the matter it was
argued on behalf of Khazamula that the impugned decisions referred to in prayers 1, 2
and 3 of the notice of motion are reviewable under PAJA as such decisions constitute
administrative action.
[39] In support of the relief claimed in the notice of motion, the grounds upon which
Khazamula rely can concisely be stated as follows:
[39.1] As a matter of fact, Khazamula commenced retail activities on 28 February
2024 resulting therein that the Controller’s cancellation of the retail licence
was unlawful; and/or
25
[39.2] There was non-compliance with Regulation 29(2) as result of which the
cancellation of the licence in terms of Regulation 30 is unlawful.
[40] In response to the relief sought by Khazamula, Energi relies om the averments made in
its founding affidavit in the Energi review and persists (based on the date of issue
argument) that the grant of the extension of the licence was unlawful as a result of
which the licence in any event lapsed ex lege, and persists in its stance that the licence
should in any event never have been issued.
APPLICABLE LEGAL MATRIX:
[41] In section 1 of PAJA “administrative action” is defined as follows:
“Administrative action means any decision taken, or any failure to take a decision, by-
(a) an organ of state when-
(i) …
(ii) exercising a public power or performing a public function in terms of any
legislation; or
(b) ………………………………………………….. …
which adversely affects the rights of any person and which has a direct, external legal
effect, but does not include-………………..”
[42] “Decision” is defined in section 1 of the PAJA to mean:
26
“Decision” means any decision of an administrative nature made, proposed to be made, or
required to be made, as the case may be, under an empowering provision, including a decision
relating to-
(a) …………………………………
(b) ………………………………………
(c) issuing, suspending, revoking or refusing to issue a licence, authority or other
instrument;
(d) ……………..
(e) ……………..
(f) ………………..
(g) ……………………….”
[43] “Empowering provision” in terms of section 1 of the PAJA is defined as follows:
“Empowering provision means a law, a rule of common law, customary law, or an agreement,
instrument or other document in terms of which an administrative action was purportedly taken;
[44] In terms of section 6 of PAJA, proceedings in a court for the judicial review of an
administrative action is available if a mandatory and material procedure or condition
prescribed by an empowering provision was not complied with 2 and/or because
2 PAJA section 6(2)(b).
27
irrelevant considerations were taken into account or relevant considerations were not
considered3 and/or if the decision taken was taken arbitrarily or capriciously4
[45] In terms of section 7(1) of PAJA any proceedings for judicial review under section 6(1)
of PAJA (judicial review of an administrative action) must be instituted without
unreasonable delay and not later than 180 days after the date on which any
proceedings instituted in terms of internal remedies have been concluded or, where no
such internal remedies exist, on which the person concerned was informed of the
administrative action, became aware of the action and the reasons for it, or might or
reasonably have been expected to have become aware of the action and the reasons.
5
[46] There is a statutory prohibition on a court to review administrative action in terms of
PAJA unless any internal remedy provided for in any other law was exhausted unless,
in exceptional circumstances and on application by the person concerned, the court
exempts such person from the obligation to exhaust internal remedies.
6
[47] The Minister and the Controller in casu derive their powers and functions from the
Petroleum Products Act No. 120 of 1977 ( “PPA”) and the regulations promulgated in
terms of that act which includes Government Notice 286 of 27 March 2006 “regulations
regarding petroleum products site and retail licences” (“the Regulations”). In terms of
3 PAJA section 6(2)(e)(iii).
4 PAJA section 6(2)(e)(vi).
5 PAJA section 7(1).
6 PAJA section 7(2).
28
PPA the Controller issue licences in accordance with the provisions of the a ct7 and
must give effect to the provisions of section 2C of the act and the stated objectives of
the act which includes creation of employment opportunities and the development of
small businesses in the petroleum sector. In terms of section 2C of PPA the Controller
is enjoined to promote the advancement of historically disadvantaged South Africans
and give effect to the Charter.
[48] Section 12A of PPA provides for an appeal to the Minister against a decision of t he
Controller which directly affects any person and provides for a time period of 60 days
after which such decision has been made known to the effective person, and the
prescribed form of such an appeal.
[49] Regulation 24(1) enjoins a licensed retailer to commence with retailing activities at the
corresponding licence site within a period of 12 months after the date on which the retail
licence is issued to the licensee, failing which the licence shall lapse. In terms of
Regulation 24(2) t he Controller m ay, upon application in writing, extend the period of
time contemplated in sub-regulation 24(1) or a consecutive period of 6 months for a
total period not exceeding 18 months and sub-regulation (3) empowers the Controller to
request information necessary from the Applicant concerning an application to extend
the time period contemplated in Regulation 24(1).
[50] Regulation 29 reads as follows:
“29. Suspension or cancellation of licence-
7 PPA section 2B(1).
29
(1) If a licensee fails to comply with any provision of the Act or these regulations,
the Controller may, notwithstanding any other penalty that may be imposed
under the Act or by other law, and subject to sub- regulation (2), cancel or
suspend the licence.
(2) The Controller may not cancel or suspend a licence unless-
(a) The licensee has been informed in writing of the intention to cancel or
suspend such licence by-
(i) setting out the particulars of the alleged such failure or
contravention; and
(ii) calling upon the licensee to make the representations to the
controller that may be necessary within 30 days after the date of
that notice;
(b) The Controller has considered-
(i) steps taken by the licensee to remedy the alleged failure or
contravention concerned or to prevent any such failure or
contravention from being repeated; and
(ii) any other relevant matters submitted by way of representations
contemplated in paragraph (a)(ii)”.
[51] In terms of Regulation 30, a licence cease to be valid if the licence is cancelled by t he
Controller in accordance with Regulation 29(2) , and Regulation 30(2) requires a
30
licensee to surrender the licence to the Controller within a period of 14 days from date
of receipt of the notification in terms of which the licensee is informed that the licence is
no longer valid.
THE NATURE OF THE ENERGI REVIEW:
[52] In my view it is so patently clear that the Controller’s issue of the impugned licences
and the grant of the impugned extension by the Controller, which forms the subject
matter of the Energi review, can only be reviewed in terms of PAJA, that it requires no
further elaboration, except to point out the following obvious considerations:
[52.1] The isssue of the licence by the Controller and/or cancellation of the licence
by the Controller and/or the extension of the time period of the licence by
the Controller are all actions which squarely fall under the definition of
“decision” in terms of section 1 of PAJA. That definition specifically
provides for a decision relating to the issuing, suspension, revoking and
refusing to issue a licence, authority or other instrument;
[52.2] The Controller is a functionary of an organ of state that exercise public
power or performs a public function in terms of PPA which therefore
squarely falls within the ambit of sub-paragraph (a)(ii) of the definition of
“administrative action” in section 1 of PAJA;
[52.3] Energi makes averments in paragraph 16 of its founding affidavit as quoted
in paragraph [33] supra which squarely places Energi in the position of a
party who is adversely affected because the decisions to issue the licence
31
and extension thereof by t he Controller to Khazamula has a direct, external
and legal effect on Energi. A commercial interest in the subject matter of the
impugned transaction establishes own interest and legal standing to
challenge it by way of review.8
[53] It is established law that a litigant may not attempt to circumvent the provisions of PAJA
and proceed on a different pathway of choice to review, such as a common law review
and/or a legality review and/or directly relying on section 33 of the Constitution. In this
regard the Constitutional Court9 held as follows:
“[95] PAJA is the national legislation that was passed to give effect to the rights contained in
section 33. It was clearly intended to be, and in substance is, a codification of these
rights. It was required to cover the field and purports to do so.”
[96] A litigant cannot avoid the provisions of PAJA by going behind it, and seeking to rely
on section 33(1) of the Constitution or the common law. That would defeat the purpose
of the Constitution in requiring the rights contained in section 33 to be given effect by
means of national legislation.
[97] Prof. Hoexter sums up the relationship between PAJA, the Constitution and the
common law, as follows:
‘The principle of legality clearly provides a much-needed safety net when the PAJA
does not apply. However, the Act cannot simply be circumvented by resorting
8 Gensinger and Neave CC & Others v Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy 2025 (4 ) SA 84 (SCA), paras [23]-
[25].
9 Minister of Health v New Clicks SA (Pty) Ltd and others, 2006 (4) SA 311 CC.
32
directly to the constitutional rights in s 33. This follows logically from the fact that the
PAJA gives effect to the constitutional rights. (The PAJA itself can of course be
measured against the constitutional rights, but that is not the same thing.) Nor is it
possible to sidestep the Act by resorting to the common law. This, too, is logical,
since statutes inevitably displace the common law. The common law may be used
to inform the meaning of the constitutional rights and of the Act, but it cannot be
regarded as an alternative to the Act.’
I agree”.
[54] This principle, meaning that litigants and the court should not circumvent PAJA when it
applies, has been stated repeatedly.10
[55] From the authorities supra it follows that Energi’s attempt to follow the pathway of a
legality review while the impugned decisions of The Controller and the Minister clearly
constitute administrative action is legally untenable. It therefore follows that the Energi
review is a review in terms of the provisions of PAJA and Energi cannot escape the
provisions of PAJA insofar as it applies to the Energi review.
[56] It is common cause that Energi failed to exercise any remedies in terms of section 12A
of PPA. During argument counsel acting on behalf of Energi attempted to argue that
section 12A is not available to Energi because the decision wa s not communicated to
Energi by way of notice or otherwise, and there is no obligation on the Controller or
10 See Minister of Defence v Xulu, 2018 (6) SA 460 (SCA), para [47] to [48].
See also: Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and others, 2004 (4) SA 490
(CC), para [25].
33
anyone else to communicate such to Energi . This submission cannot be sustained.
Section 12A of PPA provides an appeal remedy to “ any person directly affected by a
decision of the Controller …” .
[57] In Pine Glow Investments (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Energy and others 11 the failure of an
aggrieved party to exercise the appeal remedy under section 12A of PPA in relation to a
decision of the Controller made on application of a third party, was held as an absolute
bar to review proceedings by the SCA in the absence of an application to condone that
failure as envisaged in section 7(2)(c) of PAJA.
[58] There is no application before this court on behalf of Energi to establish exceptional
circumstances and neither does Energi apply to this court to exercise its discretion
under section 7(2)(c) of PAJA because it is the (incorrect) contention of Energi that the
Energi review is a legality review and thus that section 7(2) of PAJA does not apply. On
that basis, this court faces a statutory prohibition to entertain the Energi review.
[59] The Energi review therefore stands to be dismissed.
THE MERITS OF THE KHAZAMULA REVIEW:
[60] It follows from the analysis of the nature of the Energi review supra that the Khazamula
review is similarly a review in terms of PAJA as correctly argued on behalf of counsel
for Khazamula. It was not submitted on behalf of Energi, either in heads of argument or
11 Pine Glow Investments (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Energy and others 2025 (6) SA 474 (SCA).
34
during the argument of the matter, and neither was it proposed in the pleadings on
behalf of Energi that the Khazamula review is a legality review and not a review in
terms of PAJA. The only inference to be drawn from this discrepancy is namely that
those representing Energi labours under the incorrect impression that the right to review
provides a remedy of choice.
[61] In my view the issue whether the extension of the retail licence approved by the
Controller on 7 August 2023 was in fact approved after the initial licence issued on 20
April 2021 lapsed ex lege is, for purposes of this application irrelevant. The fact is that
the request for an extension addressed to the Controller on 5 May 2023 was approved
by the Controller on 7 August 2023 which resulted therein that the approval, which
constitutes administrative action, remains valid and binding unless reviewed and set
aside by a court. 12 In my view t he validity of the extension in casu is not a necessary
pre-condition for the validity of consequential acts 13 when due regard is had to the
regulations referred to supra. In any event, the full court of this division has held in the
judgment of Streaks Ahead Investments (Pty)Ltd and Others v Lepelle Industrial and
Mining Supplies (A243/17) [2019] ZAGPPHC 514 (27 March 2019) that the Controller
has the power to compound criminal conduct and is bestowed a powerful administrative
tool to issue directives, and may even allow a licensee to continue an activity in
contravention of PPA pending remedial measures to achieve compliance if, by doing
so, a material interruption in the supply of petroleum products may be avoided. That
finding by the full court of this division is based on the consideration that the objects of
12 Oudekraal Estates v City of Cape Town and others 2004 (6) SA 222 (SCA).
13 Oudekraal supra, para [31] – [32].
35
the PPA must be achieved. In my view, that judgment (which is binding on this court )
puts to bed the argument of Energi that the decision to extend the impugned licence
was unlawful because it was granted after the licence lapsed, and which renders all
decisions that the Controller took thereafter as null and void. That very point was
rejected by the majority of the full court of the Mphumalanga Division in a judgment of
Pine Glow Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others v Controller of Petroleum Products and
Others14 with which I respectfully agree.
[62] Regulation 29(2) clearly provides the Controller with a discretionary remedy which
includes the power not to cancel or suspend a licence in circumstances where t he
Controller has considered steps taken by the licensee to remedy the alleged failure or
contravention concerned, or have considered steps taken to prevent any such failure or
contravention from being repeated.
[63] Considering the aforesaid judgments and the provisions of Regulations 24, 29 and 30
read conjunctively with the objects of PPA, I therefore hold that the argument of Energi
to the effect that the failure to apply for an extension and the subsequent lapse of the
licence is an absolute bar to a licensee to have the licence reinstated, is incorrect. In my
view, the validity of a lawful extension under Regulation 24(1) is not a requirement for
the validity of consequential acts of the Controller exercising powers in terms of PPA or
the Regulations.
14 Pine Glow Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Caltex Mpumalanga North Marketer v Controller of Petroleum Products and
Others (A15/25) Case No. 5551/2022 (29 December 2025) Mpumalanga Division, Mbombela Main Seat at para
[20]-[21].
36
[64] The issues raised by Energi in opposing the Khazamula review relating to the relevance
for the date of issue of the retail licence to Khazamula and the legality of the extension
approved under Regulation 24(2) by the controller on 7 August 2023 therefore
becomes irrelevant and it follows that the only remaining issue for review in the
Khazamula review is namely the decision of the Controller dated 21 October 2025 as
quoted in paragraph [26] supra to cancel the retail licence of Khazamula. In this regard
it was argued on behalf of Khazamula that substantial evidence in the form of
documentary reports, photographs and an affidavit were provided which confirms that,
on 28 February 2024, Khazamula conducted retail activities. From a perusal of that
notice to cancel the retail licence, it transpires from the contents of paragraph 6 of that
notice that on 4 March 2024 Khazamula disputed the factual grounds for the impugned
cancellation, some 19 months before the date of the impugned notice of cancellation.
No reasons are provided by the Controller why that inordinate delay occurred , no
particulars of the investigation conducted by the Controller is provided, and no reasons
are provided why the factual grounds which Khazamula provided on 4 March 2024 were
not upheld. However, for the reasons that follow hereunder, it is not necessary to make
a factual determination on the issue whether Khamazula commenced retail activities on
28 February 2024.
[65] From a perusal of the impugned notice of cancellation, and a perusal of the
Regulations, the notice of cancellation is clearly a notice in terms of the provisions of
Regulation 29(1). From the provisions of Regulation 29(2) it is clear that the decision to
suspend a licence is a discretionary power awarded to the Controller which may only be
exercised under specific circumstances as referred to in Regulation 29(2) , if the
licensee failed to comply with any provision of PPA or Regulations. The controller is
37
afforded a discretionary power (and not enjoined) as is clear from the use of the word
“may” in Regulation 29(2), to cancel or suspend the licenc e. The wording of Regulation
29(2) makes it clear that the Controller is prohibited from the cancellation or suspension
of a licence in the absence of due process prescribed in terms of Regulations 29(2)(a)
and (b). That process is a quasi judicial process which requires adherence to the audi
alterem partem principle, a proper consideration of all relevant matters, and a rational
decision.
[66] The notice of cancellation of t he Controller dated 21 October 2025 which is referred to
in paragraph [26] supra, which served to cancel the issued licences outright, is in my
view a nullity as it failed to adhere to the prescripts of Regulation 29(2) . Ex facie the
notice of cancellation, the controller did not comply with Regulation 29(2)(a) (ii) or with
Regulation 29(2)(b) , as the Controller gave immediate notice of cancellation which
clearly implies that regulations 29(2)((b)(i) and (ii) were not complied with. The fact that
the notice of cancellation refers in paragraph 6 of that notice to a notice to surrender
dated 4 March 2024 is of no consequence because that notice to surrender was also
served without any compliance with Regulation 29(2). Regulation 29(2) clearly prohibits
the Controller to cancel a licence unless Regulation 29(2)(a) and Regulation 29(2)(b)
had been complied with.
[67] The cancellation of the retail licence held by Khazamula has a serious and continued
detrimental effect, not only on Khazamula, but also on its employees, financial partners
(a financial institution and a commercial undertaking, Sasol) and the cancellation of the
retail licence by the Controller has a potential adverse effect on the objects of PPA. It is
therefore imperative that the Controller do not adopt a high handed attitude followed by
38
a completely distorted procedure characterised by an initial extension of the licence
period, a cancellation of the extension, a reinstatement of the extension, a purported
cancellation of the licence, and subsequent notice of cancellation some 19 moths later,
which purports to be in terms of Regulation 29 but which does not comply Regulation
29(2) and which thus renders the notice to be a nullity. This administrative quagmire
was caused by the proverbial flip-flop of the controller on its longstanding practice to
have regarded the date of the collection of the licence as the date of issue, which was
changed by the controller unilaterally, without due regard to the detrimental
consequences to Khazamula, to the date of approval after the attorney acting for Energi
engaged the Controller on this issue. I find this remarkable.
[68] Furthermore, it is clear from a reading of Regulation 29 that the cancellation of a retail
licence is not an unavoidable sequitur in circumstances where there is non -compliance
with any provision of PPA or the Regulations. Regulation 29(2)(b) enjoins the Controller
to consider steps taken to remedy the failure or contravention and to consider other
relevant matters submitted by way of representations contemplated in paragraph
29(2)(a)(ii). The Controller is enjoined to consider the relevant matters and exercise its
discretion with due consideration of the objects of PAA and the bill of rights. In casu
these considerations, in my view, include the fact that more than R40 million have been
invested into the retail site, a franchise agreement was entered into with Sasol which is
a national company which fulfills an important function in the economy of South Africa,
and the fact that a financial institution extended substantial credit facilities to
Khazamula. Khazamula has employed a substantial workforce and has progressed to
a fully operational retail outlet. In my view, i f these considerations were rationally
a fully operational retail outlet. In my view, i f these considerations were rationally
considered by the Controller , exercising its discretion in a quasi judicial manner and
39
with due regard to the objects of PPA, it would have been irrational to cancel the
licence. The fact is, these considerations were not even considered by the Controller,
notwithstanding the fact that the Controller is enjoined to do so by virtue of Regulation
29(2)(b)(ii) to do so.
[69] The facts as set out above in relation to the failure of the Controller to comply with
Regulation 29(2) , my view, clearly renders the impugned decision of the Controller to
cancel the licence reviewable in terms of sections 6(2)(b), 6(2)(e)(iii), 6(2)(e)(vi), and
6(2)(f)(ii)(bb) of PAJA.
[70] It therefore follows that the decision of t he Controller to cancel the retail licence of
Khazamula stands to be reviewed and set aside as unlawful. It also then follows that
the declaration of Controller to the effect that the site licence became invalid, is also
unlawful and suffers the same fate.
CONCLUSION AND COSTS:
[71] Considering the aforesaid, it follows that the Energi review stands to be dismissed and
the relief as sought by Khazamula should be granted.
[72] The parties are ad idem that costs should follow the event. The parties are also ad idem
that the costs of the urgent application referred to in paragraph 3 of the consent order
should follow the event.
IN THE PREMISES, I MAKE THE FOLLOWING ORDER:
40
1. The review application under case number 2023/128106 (“the Energi review”) is
consolidated with the review application under case number 2026/036574 (“the
Khazamula review”) to be heard under case number 2026/036574.
2. The counter application brought by Khazamula Properties (Pty)Ltd under case number
2023/128106 is postponed sine die.
3. The Energi review is dismissed.
4. In the Khazamula review the following order is granted:
4.1. That the finding or decision by the Controller of Petroleum Products dated 21
October 2025, in terms of which the retail licence issued to Khamazula
Properties (Pty)Ltd by the Department Mineral Resources and Energy (number
R2021/0048) was cancelled, is reviewed and set aside and the finding that the
site license is invalid, is reviewed and set aside.
4.2. The decision by the Minister; Mineral Resources and Energy, dated 15
January 2026, in terms of which the appeal of Khazamula Properties (Pty)Ltd
under section 12A of the Petroleum Products Act number 120 of 1977 against
the decision of the Controller of Petroleum Products referred to in paragraph
4.1 supra was dismissed, is reviewed and set aside;
4.3. The decision by the Minister; Mineral Resources and Energy dated 15 January
2026, in terms of which decision it was found that the site licence issued by the
41
Department Mineral Resources and Energy (number S/2021/0017) to
Khazamula Properties (Pty)Ltd is invalid, is reviewed and set aside;
4.4. It is declared that the retail licence issued by the Department Mineral
Resources and Energy (number R2021/0048) and site licence issued by the
Department Mineral Resources and Energy (number S/2021/0017) to
Khazamula Properties (Pty)Ltd remains valid and of full force and effect.
5. Energi Licences (Pty)Ltd is ordered to pay the costs of the consolidated applications and
the costs of the application under case number 2025/178946 which was reserved on 25
February 2025, to be taxed on scale C.
_______________________________
P A VAN NIEKERK
JUDGE OF THE GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
APPEARANCES
FOR ENERGI LICENCES (PTY) LTD BG SAVVAS
INSTRUCTED BY: MURRAY KOTZE & ASSOCIATES
FOR KHAZAMULA PROPERTIES (PTY) LTD : JA
VENTER
42
INSTRUCTED BY: WEAVIND & WEAVIND
INC.