Autopax Passenger Services (SOC) Limited and Another v Africa People Mover (Pty) Ltd and Others (84973/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 214 (15 March 2017)

Autopax Passenger Services (SOC) Limited and Another v Africa People Mover (Pty) Ltd and Others (84973/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 214 (15 March 2017)

The court found that there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The unsigned confirmatory affidavits, although hearsay, were admissible in the urgent application as the sources were disclosed. The discretion exercised in awarding costs was not shown to be capricious or improperly exercised. Furthermore, granting leave to appeal would have no practical effect, as the applicants are already legally prohibited from engaging in the conduct interdicted. The application for leave to appeal was therefore refused.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 214
Parties
Applicant: Autopax Passenger Services (SOC) Limited; Applicant: Venda Johannesburg Taxi Association; Respondent: Africa People Mover (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Thulamela Local Municipality; Respondent: Busbuckridge Taxi Association; Respondent: Busbuckridge Local Municipality; Respondent: Limpopo Provincial Regulatory Entity; Respondent: Gauteng Provincial Regulatory Entity; Respondent: Mpumalanga Registrar of Transport
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 March 2017
Case Number
84973/2015
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Final Interdict and Costs Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Judges
N.M. Mavundla
Legal Topics
Final Interdict, Leave to Appeal, Hearsay Evidence, Costs Award, Urgent Application
Civil Procedure Final Interdict Leave to Appeal Hearsay Evidence Costs Award Urgent Application

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Autopax Passenger Services (SOC) Limited

Applicant

Venda Johannesburg Taxi Association

Applicant

Africa People Mover (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Thulamela Local Municipality

Respondent

Busbuckridge Taxi Association

Respondent

Busbuckridge Local Municipality

Respondent

Limpopo Provincial Regulatory Entity

Respondent

Gauteng Provincial Regulatory Entity

Respondent

Mpumalanga Registrar of Transport

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Final Interdict and Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court erred in granting final interdictory relief despite factual disputes.
  2. 2 Whether unsigned confirmatory affidavits constituted inadmissible hearsay evidence.
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted given prospects of success.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The unsigned confirmatory affidavits, although hearsay, were admissible in the urgent application as the sources were disclosed. The discretion exercised in awarding costs was not shown to be capricious or improperly exercised. Furthermore, granting leave to appeal would have no practical effect, as the applicants are already legally prohibited from engaging in the conduct interdicted. The application for leave to appeal was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application.