SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case Number: B40251/2022
(1) REPORTABLE: NO/YES
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED: YES/NO
DATE 12/6/2026
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
BOKAMOSO PASSENGER SERVICES CC First Applicant
MBITA CONSULTING SERVICES CC Second Applicant
MATHAFENG BUS SERVICES Third Applicant
AMOGELANG LOGISTICS Fourth Applicant
MYBOETS TRANSPORT Fifth Applicant
MATHOLE BUS SERVICES Sixth Applicant
and
TSHWANE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY First Respondent
VICE-CHANCELLOR N.O Second Respondent
THWANE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
IKHWEZI BUS SERVICES (PTY) LTD Third Respondent
2
TRIPONZA TRADING 548 CC Fourth Respondent
DEVINE INSTINCT FOUNDATION (PTY) LTD Fifth Respondent
MPHAKATHI TOURS CC Sixth Respondent
PURCO SA Seventh Respondent
This judgment is prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected as such
and is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties / their legal
representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on
CaseLines. The date for handing down is deemed to be JUNE 2026.
JUDGMENT
MAKHOBA J
1. The First Applicant is Bokamoso Passenger Services CC, a close corporation
duly registered and incorporated in terms of the Close Corporations Act, 69 of
1984.
2. The Second Applicant is Mbita Consulting Services CC, a close corporation
duly registered and incorporated in terms of the Close Corporation Act, 69 of
1984.
3. The Third Applicant is Mathafeng Bus Service Pty (Ltd), (Registration No:
2014/059290/07) a company duly registered and incorporated in terms of the
company laws of South Africa with registered address at 3[...] Extension 1 ,
S[…] S[…], Pretoria, Gauteng.
4. The Fourth Applicant is Amogelang Logistics CC, a Close Corporation duly
registered and incorporated in terms of the Close Corporations Act, 69 of
1984.
3
5. The Fifth Applicant is Myboets Transport CC, (Registration No.
2008/038213/23) a Close Corporation duly registered and incorporated in
terms of the Close Corporations Act, 69 of 1984 with registered address at
1[...] D[...], Hazyview, Mpumalanga.
6. The Sixth Applicant is Mathole Bus Services CC, a company duly registered
and incorporated in terms of the company laws of South Africa.
7. The First Respondent is the Tshwane University of Technology, a tertiary
institution established in terms of Section 20 read with Section 23(1) and
Section 24 of the Higher Education Act 101 of 1997.
8. The Second Respondent is Vice-Chencellor: Tshwane University of Techology
an official responsible for the day -to-day management and administration of
the university with the Vice -Chancellor who performs the role of Chief
Executive Officer, appointed in terms of Section 26 read with Section 30 and
Section 34 of the Higher Education Act
9. The Third Respondent is Ikhwezi Bus Service (Pty) Ltd, a company duly
registered and incorporated in terms of the company laws of South Africa.
10. The Fourth Respondent is Triponza Trading 548 CC, a Close Corporation duly
registered and incorporated in terms of the Close Corporations Act, 69 of
1984.
11. The Fifth Respondent is Devine Instinct Foundation (Pty) Ltd, a company duly
registered and incorporated in terms of the company laws of South Africa.
12. The Sixth Respondent is Mpakathi Tours CC, a Close Corporation duly
registered and incorporated in terms of the Close Corporations Act, 69 of
1984.
4
13. The Seventh Respondent is Purchasing Consortium Southern Africa NPC
[Purco SA], a non -profit company registered in terms of the Companies Act,
71 of 2008.
14. The Eighth Respondent is Devine Instincts (Pty) Ltd, a company duly
registered and incorporated in terms of the company laws of South Africa.
15. The Ninth Respondent is Pal and Sons Bus Services CC, a Close Corporation
duly registered and incorporated in terms of the Close Corporations Act, 69 of
1984.
16. Counsel for the first Applicants asked the court to hear both the application in
terms of Section 7 read with Section 9 of PAJA and the review application.
17. Counsel for the Respondents objected and asked the court to entertain first
the application whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain the review
application.
18. This court decided to hear first the issue of jurisdiction and if Applicant is
successful the court will then hear the review application.
19. Counsel for the First and Second Respondent argued that, the application
was instituted long after the expiry of the 180 days period and the delay is
unreasonable and this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the review
application.
20. Counsel argued further that, the applicants have not made out a case that this
is an application in which the interest of justice so require that the 180 days
period be extended.
21. Counsel contended that, the delay is extremely excessive and unreasonable.
Furthermore there is no full and reasonable explanation for the delay covering
the entire period of the delay.
5
22. In addition it is contended that the university will be prejudiced if the relief
sought is granted.
23. On behalf of the Third, Fourth and Sixth Respondents counsel chose to abide
by any decision of the court. The Fifth and Seventh Responden ts were not
represented.
24. On behalf of the Eighth Respondent, counsel for the Respondent also
contended that, this application was instituted long after the expiry of the 180
days period and the delay is unreasonable. Consequently this court does not
have jurisdiction to entertain the review application.
25. On behalf of the Ninth Respondent counsel argued that, the applicants do not
seek condonation for their non -compliance with time limitations. For this
reason alone, the application against the Ninth Respondent cannot be
sustained and stands to be dismissed.
26. Section 7 of PAJA provides as follows:
“(1) Any proceedings for judicial review in terms of s 6(1) must be instituted
without unreasonable delay and not later than 180 days after the date-
(a) Subject to subsection 2(c), on which any proceedings instituted in terms of
internal remedies as contemplated in subsection 2(a) have been
concluded; or
(b) Where no such 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 reasonably have been expected to have become
aware of the action and the reasons.
6
(2)(a) Subject to paragraph (c), no court or tribunal shall review an
administrative action in terms of this Act, unless any internal remedy provided
for in any other law has first been exhausted…..”
27. Where the parties agree the prescri bed 180 days time period may be extended
for a fixed period in terms of Section 9. Where the parties are unable to agree to this,
the court may extend the period where the interest of justice so require.
28. In opposition to Urban Tolling v South African National Roads Agency Ltd 1, the
court said the following: “Before the effluxion of 180 days, the first inquiry in applying
S 7(1) is still whether the delay (if any) was unreasonable . But after the 180 day s
period the issue of unreaso nableness is pre -determined by the legislature; it is
unreasonable per se . it follows that the court is only empowered to entertain the
review application if the interest of justice dictates an extension in terms of s 9.
Absent such extension the court has no authority to entertain the review application
at all….”
29. In Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa v Siyangena Technologies (Pty) Ltd
and others 2 the court held that, what Section 9 envisage s is not a condonation
application but an application to extend the period of 180 days. A party who needs an
extension must motivate it with regard to the ‘interest of justice’. The Supreme Court
of Appeal said the following about the requirement to satisfy the court: “…And the
question whether the interest of just ice require the grant of such extension depends
on the facts and circumstances of each case : the party seeking it must furnish a full
and reasonable explanation for the delay which covers the entire duration thereof
and relevant factors include the nature of the relief sought, the extent and cause of
1 [2013] ZASCA 148; [2013] 4 All SA 629 (SCA) (OUTA) para26.
2 [2017] ZAGPHC 138 & 2010 (2) All SA 519 (SCA) at para 54.
7
the delay, its effect on the administration of justice and other litigants, the importance
of the issue to be raised in the intended proceedings and the prospects of success.”
30. In my view the Applicants ought to have cited all the Respondents in the review
application from the beginning.
31. The Applicants became aware that some of the Respondents were not joined in
December 2022 during the urgent application From December 2022 the Applicants
did not act with speed to join all the interested parties. The joinder application order
was granted in November 2023.
32. It is eleven months after the Applicants became aware of the decision to award
the tender to the successful bidders and the reasons for it.
33. The successful bidders have been executing the tender since Dec ember 2022, it
has since been approximately three years.
34. In order for this court to entertain the review application, it must be in the interest
of justice to do so in terms of Section 9 of PAJA, absent such extension there is no
authority to entertain the review application at all3.
35. It is further my view that, the tenders awarded to the various Respondents have
run their course. The Applicant’s founding affidavit does not contain a full and
reasonable explanation covering the entire period of eleven months for the delay in
instituting the review application against the Respondents . The delay cannot in my
view be condoned.
3 Opposition to Urban Tolling Id par 26 and Camps Bay Ratepayers par 54.
8
36. I conclude that the applicants failed to make out a case to be granted the relief
contemplated in Section 9(2) of PAJA. I am of the view that, this court does not have
jurisdiction to entertain this application.
37. I make the following order:
1. The application is dismissed with costs on Scale C, such costs to include the
costs of two counsel.
___________________________
D MAKHOBA
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
9
Date of Hearing : 14 May 2026
Date of Judgment :
For the applicant : APJ ELS SC
For the respondents : 1st and 2nd Res – Adv K. Tsatsawane SC
: 3rd-6th Res – Adv Michael Dafel
: 8th Res – Adv L Van Gass
: 9th Res – Adv T.P. Kruger SC
10