IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
(1) REPORTABLE : NO
(2) OF INTERE:;JO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVIS ED.
DATE : 2.Jb'/ 'ZD2 '
SIGNATURE
In the matter between :
ENERGI LICENCES (PTY) LTD
and
THE CONTROLLER OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
KHAZAMULA PROPERTIES (PTY) LTD
AND3 OTHERS
In the matter between:
KHAZAMULA PROPERTIES
and
AND
Case No. 2023/128106
Applicant
First Respondent
Second Respondent
Case No. 2026/03657 4
Applicant
THE CONTROLLER OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
THE MINISTER OF MINERAL AND PETROLEUM
RESOURCES
2
First Respondent
Second Respondent
JUDGMEN T: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEA L
The judgment and order are published and distributed electronically.
PA VAN NIEKERK, J
INTRODUCTION :
[1] Applicant applies for leave to appeal against the order and the whole of the judgment of
this Court dated 30 March 2026 ("the judgment') . For sake of convenience the parties
will be referred to herein as they were referred to in the judgment. The Applicant in this
application for leave to appeal is Energi. Energi was the Applicant in the Energi review
under case no. 2023/128106 and was the only party which opposed the relief sought by
Khazamula in the Khazamula review under case no. 2026/036574.
[2] The application for leave to appeal consists of 20 paragraphs, some of which contain
various sub-paragraphs, and contain not only grounds upon which leave to appeal is
sought but also set out argument in support thereof. This verbose application for leave to
appeal is supported by heads of argument filed on behalf of Energi, which consists of 40
pages, containing elaborate quotations from authorities.
[3] The aforesaid heads of argument essentially relate to the Applicant's argument that the
retail licence of Khazamula lapsed by virtue of the provisions of Regulation 24 and could
3
therefore not have been revived by the Controller. It also serves to support the Applicant's
argument that the lapse of the licence by virtue of Regulation 24 does not constitute a
"decision " as defined in PAJA and is therefore not reviewable under PAJA. The finding of
this Court that PAJA applies is attacked, not only in the application for leave to appeal
but also in the heads of argument filed in support thereof. In essence, the Applicant relies
on the contention that a legality review is appropriate and further that this court erred in
not holding that the impugned licence lapsed by virtue of Regulation 24 and the
subsequent extension granted by the controller was therefore a nullity.
[4] A perusal of prayer 1 of the notice of motion in the Energi review (referred to in paragraph
28 of the judgment) clearly confirms that Energi seeks to review the initial issue of the
site and retail licences by the Controller. A perusal of prayer 2 of the notice of motion in
the Energi review clearly confirms that Energi seeks to review the extension of those
licences, which were granted by the Controller. Prayer 3 of the notice of motion in the
Energi review is consequential on a finding in favour of Energi insofar as relief claimed in
paragraphs 1 and 2 of the notice of motion is concerned. In the judgment I have quoted
from the contents of the founding affidavit in support of the Energi review which leaves
no doubt that the Energi review application is clearly aimed to impugn the decisions of
the Controller who initially granted the licences and thereafter extended the licences.
[5] In paragraph 52 of the judgment the reasons why it was held that the Energi review is a
review to be conducted under PAJA, based on the supporting authorities and applicable
sections of PAJA, are set out. Put concisely, the impugned decisions of the Controller
squirely fall under the definition of "decision" in section 1 of PAJA. Having found that in
squirely fall under the definition of "decision" in section 1 of PAJA. Having found that in
casu that the only pathway to review is PAJA, it was found that Applicant falls foul of
section 7(2)(a) of PAJA. In my view there is no reasonable possibility that another Court
4
will arrive at a different conclusion, because the legal principles referred to in the
judgment in support of this finding constitutes established law.
[6] The application for leave to appeal against the Khazamula review follows a similar fate.
On the common cause facts, when cancelling the Khazamula licence, the Controller failed
to comply with the prescripts of Regulation 29.2.1 That failure renders the impugned
decision of the Controller to cancel the licence reviewable in terms of PAJA. 2 This fact
was never disputed by applicant. The principles in relation to this finding also constitute
established law and in my view there is no reasonable possibility that another Court will
arrive at a different conclusion.
IN THE RESULT I MAKE THE FOLLOWING ORDER;
The application for leave to appeal is dismiss
APPEARANCES
FOR ENERGI LICENCES (PTY) LTD
INSTRUCTED BY:
1 Vide judgment, paras [66].
2 Vide judgment, para [69).
P A VAN NIEKERK
JUDGE OF THE GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
BGSAWAS
MURRAY KOTZE & ASSOCIATES
5
FOR KHAZAMULA PROPERTIES (PTY) LTD: JAVENTER
INSTRUCTED BY: WEAVIND & WEAVIND INC.