Bhaki Trading and Suppliers CC v Ithala Development Finance Corporation Ltd (13477/2022P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 50 (10 May 2023)

Bhaki Trading and Suppliers CC v Ithala Development Finance Corporation Ltd (13477/2022P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 50 (10 May 2023)

The court held that the applicant launched the review application outside the 180-day period prescribed by PAJA and did not seek condonation or extension for the delay. As a result, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the review application, and the respondent was not obliged to file the record of the decision. The right to receive the record is not dependent on the merits but on the timely institution of proceedings and the court's jurisdiction. The applicant's conditional application for condonation contained no substantive relief or grounds and was not properly brought before the court. The application to compel was therefore premature and had to be dismissed.

Citation
[2023] ZAKZPHC 50
Parties
Applicant: Bhaki Trading and Suppliers CC; Respondent: Ithala Development Finance Corporation Ltd
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 May 2023
Case Number
13477/2022P
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Compel Filing of Record in Review Proceedings
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where so employed.
Judges
Mngadi
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Review Proceedings, Condonation for Delay, Exhaustion of Internal Remedies
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Review Proceedings Condonation for Delay Exhaustion of Internal Remedies

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bhaki Trading and Suppliers CC

Applicant

Ithala Development Finance Corporation Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Compel Filing of Record in Review Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is obliged to file the record of the decision under Rule 53 when the review application was launched outside the 180-day period prescribed by PAJA.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to compel production of the record without first obtaining condonation for the late filing of the review application.
  3. 3 Whether the failure to exhaust internal remedies bars the review application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant launched the review application outside the 180-day period prescribed by PAJA and did not seek condonation or extension for the delay. As a result, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the review application, and the respondent was not obliged to file the record of the decision. The right to receive the record is not dependent on the merits but on the timely institution of proceedings and the court's jurisdiction. The applicant's conditional application for condonation contained no substantive relief or grounds and was not properly brought before the court. The application to compel was therefore premature and had to be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where so employed.

Orders

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