BP Atlas Road and Another v Azitex CC and Others (55926/12) [2013] ZAGPPHC 164 (10 June 2013)

BP Atlas Road and Another v Azitex CC and Others (55926/12) [2013] ZAGPPHC 164 (10 June 2013)

The court found that the applicants were aware of the proceedings and had participated up to the relevant dates, including making a tender for security and corresponding with the respondents. The applicants failed to provide any explanation for their absence on 28 January 2013 and did not file the required answering affidavit. The court held that the order for security for costs was properly granted and that the applicants' dissatisfaction with the security being held in the respondents' attorneys' trust account did not constitute grounds for rescission. The use of the word 'consent' in the order was unfortunate but immaterial to the substance of the order. The order was final and...

Citation
[2013] ZAGPPHC 164
Parties
Applicant: BP Atlas Road trading as Alladin Service Station CC; Applicant: Rooksana and Rashid Soobrayan; Respondent: Azitex CC; Respondent: Edopax CC; Respondent: Stand 13 Eastwood Road Dunkeld (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Engen Petroleum Limited; Respondent: MEC, Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment, Gauteng Provincial Department; Respondent: Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Controller of Petroleum Products; Respondent: Minister, National Department of Minerals and Energy; Respondent: Minister, National Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 June 2013
Case Number
55926/12
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Prior Court Order
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel. Main application stayed until compliance with the court order dated 31 January 2013.
Judges
P.M. Mabuse
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Security for Costs, Rule 42 Uniform Rules, Interlocutory Orders
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Security for Costs Rule 42 Uniform Rules Interlocutory Orders

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BP Atlas Road trading as Alladin Service Station CC

Applicant

Rooksana and Rashid Soobrayan

Applicant

Azitex CC

Respondent

Edopax CC

Respondent

Stand 13 Eastwood Road Dunkeld (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Engen Petroleum Limited

Respondent

MEC, Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment, Gauteng Provincial Department

Respondent

Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Controller of Petroleum Products

Respondent

Minister, National Department of Minerals and Energy

Respondent

Minister, National Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Prior Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order of 28 and 31 January 2013 was erroneously granted in the absence of the applicants.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were properly notified and given an opportunity to oppose the security for costs application.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants made a case for rescission under Rule 42(1)(a) of the Uniform Rules of Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants were aware of the proceedings and had participated up to the relevant dates, including making a tender for security and corresponding with the respondents. The applicants failed to provide any explanation for their absence on 28 January 2013 and did not file the required answering affidavit. The court held that the order for security for costs was properly granted and that the applicants' dissatisfaction with the security being held in the respondents' attorneys' trust account did not constitute grounds for rescission. The use of the word 'consent' in the order was unfortunate but immaterial to the substance of the order. The order was final and...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel. Main application stayed until compliance with the court order dated 31 January 2013.

Orders

  • The application for rescission is dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
  • The main application is stayed until the applicants have complied with the court order dated 31 January 2013.