Appolis Builders CC v Minister of Public Works Thulas Nxusi N.O (89732/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 469 (5 September 2019)

Appolis Builders CC v Minister of Public Works Thulas Nxusi N.O (89732/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 469 (5 September 2019)

The court found the applicant had locus standi, as its deregistration had been cured and its member was authorised to act. However, the applicant failed to establish an actual infringement of its rights under PAJA, as the parliamentary directive was vague, lacked legal force, and was not enforceable. The application was not brought under PAJA, and was out of time for judicial review. The defence of lis pendens did not apply, as the relief sought in this application differed from the pending litigation. The applicant failed to prove entitlement to declaratory or interdictory relief, and did not establish that its name was on any blacklist. The application was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 469
Parties
Applicant: Appolis Builders CC; Respondent: Minister of Public Works Thulas Nxusi N.O.
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 September 2019
Case Number
89732/2018
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment on Application for Declaratory and Interdictory Relief
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Kromhout AJ
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Declaratory Relief, Final Interdict, Locus Standi, Lis Pendens
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Declaratory Relief Final Interdict Locus Standi Lis Pendens

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appolis Builders CC

Applicant

Minister of Public Works Thulas Nxusi N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment on Application for Declaratory and Interdictory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has locus standi to bring the application.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's non-compliance with a parliamentary directive infringes the applicant's rights under PAJA.
  3. 3 Whether the defence of lis pendens applies due to pending litigation in the Northern Cape High Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the applicant had locus standi, as its deregistration had been cured and its member was authorised to act. However, the applicant failed to establish an actual infringement of its rights under PAJA, as the parliamentary directive was vague, lacked legal force, and was not enforceable. The application was not brought under PAJA, and was out of time for judicial review. The defence of lis pendens did not apply, as the relief sought in this application differed from the pending litigation. The applicant failed to prove entitlement to declaratory or interdictory relief, and did not establish that its name was on any blacklist. The application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.