Bosfor CC and Another v NCT Forestry Co-operative Ltd (10870/17) [2019] ZAKZPHC 20 (8 April 2019)

Bosfor CC and Another v NCT Forestry Co-operative Ltd (10870/17) [2019] ZAKZPHC 20 (8 April 2019)

The court found that the second applicant lacked locus standi as it was not a member of the respondent, and its application was dismissed with costs. The point of lis alibi pendens was rendered moot by the withdrawal of the earlier application, but the respondent was entitled to costs up to the date of withdrawal. The review application was filed outside the reasonable period, and no condonation application was made; therefore, the application was dismissed. The respondent's decision was not administrative action susceptible to review under PAJA or common law, as it was a private contractual matter. The court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the review, and the application was dismissed...

Citation
[2019] ZAKZPHC 20
Parties
Applicant: Bosfor CC; Applicant: Fibretech CC; Respondent: NCT Forestry Co-operative Ltd
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 April 2019
Case Number
10870/17
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs; respondent succeeds on all points in limine.
Judges
Masipa
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Lis Alibi Pendens, Condonation, Jurisdiction of Review, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Locus Standi Lis Alibi Pendens Condonation Jurisdiction of Review Promotion of Administrative Justice Act

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bosfor CC

Applicant

Fibretech CC

Applicant

NCT Forestry Co-operative Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second applicant has locus standi to bring the review application.
  2. 2 Whether the doctrine of lis alibi pendens applies due to a prior similar application.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in launching the review application requires condonation and if so, whether it should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second applicant lacked locus standi as it was not a member of the respondent, and its application was dismissed with costs. The point of lis alibi pendens was rendered moot by the withdrawal of the earlier application, but the respondent was entitled to costs up to the date of withdrawal. The review application was filed outside the reasonable period, and no condonation application was made; therefore, the application was dismissed. The respondent's decision was not administrative action susceptible to review under PAJA or common law, as it was a private contractual matter. The court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the review, and the application was dismissed...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs; respondent succeeds on all points in limine.

Orders

  • The second applicant's application is dismissed with costs.
  • The respondent is awarded costs up to and including the date of withdrawal of the initial application on the lis alibi pendens point.