APM Terminals BV v Transnet SOC Limited and Others (Leave to Appeal) (D3052/2024) [2024] ZAKZDHC 90 (11 December 2024)

APM Terminals BV v Transnet SOC Limited and Others (Leave to Appeal) (D3052/2024) [2024] ZAKZDHC 90 (11 December 2024)

The court found that the interim interdict order granted on 9 October 2024 is interlocutory and temporary, enduring only until the determination of Part B of the application. It does not finally dispose of the parties' rights or a substantial portion of the relief claimed in the main proceedings. Applying the Zweni test and subsequent constitutional jurisprudence, the order is not appealable. The court further held that the grounds advanced by the second respondent do not establish a reasonable prospect of success or a compelling reason for leave to appeal. The financial criteria and solvency ratio requirements were correctly interpreted as mandatory, and the applicant properly identified...

Citation
[2024] ZAKZDHC 90
Parties
Applicant: APM Terminals BV; Respondent: Transnet SOC Limited; Respondent: International Container Terminal Services Inc; Respondent: COSCO Shipping Ports Limited; Respondent: DP World Limited; Respondent: Global Ports Services PTE Limited; Respondent: Red Sea Gateway Terminal; Respondent: MMC Port Holdings SDN BHD; Respondent: Terminal Investment Limited; Respondent: Remgro Limited
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 December 2024
Case Number
D3052/2024
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interim Interdict Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel on scale C. Condonation for late amendment granted with no order as to costs.
Judges
Mossop
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Leave to Appeal, Tender Review, Solvency Ratio Requirement, Superior Courts Act, Administrative Action
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Administrative Law Interim Interdict Leave to Appeal Tender Review Solvency Ratio Requirement Superior Courts Act +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

APM Terminals BV

Applicant

Transnet SOC Limited

Respondent

International Container Terminal Services Inc

Respondent

COSCO Shipping Ports Limited

Respondent

DP World Limited

Respondent

Global Ports Services PTE Limited

Respondent

Red Sea Gateway Terminal

Respondent

MMC Port Holdings SDN BHD

Respondent

Terminal Investment Limited

Respondent

Remgro Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interim Interdict Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the interim interdict order granted on 9 October 2024 appealable under South African law.
  2. 2 Did the applicant correctly identify the administrative action subject to review.
  3. 3 Was the application for interim relief properly treated as urgent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the interim interdict order granted on 9 October 2024 is interlocutory and temporary, enduring only until the determination of Part B of the application. It does not finally dispose of the parties' rights or a substantial portion of the relief claimed in the main proceedings. Applying the Zweni test and subsequent constitutional jurisprudence, the order is not appealable. The court further held that the grounds advanced by the second respondent do not establish a reasonable prospect of success or a compelling reason for leave to appeal. The financial criteria and solvency ratio requirements were correctly interpreted as mandatory, and the applicant properly identified...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel on scale C. Condonation for late amendment granted with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The second respondent’s application for condonation for the late delivery of its application to amend its notice of application for leave to appeal is granted and there shall be no order as to costs.
  • The second respondent’s notice of application for leave to appeal is amended to reflect reliance on s 17(1)(a)(i) and s 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013.