BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (19955/2020, 22772/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 331; 83 SATC 295 (21 July 2020)

BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (19955/2020, 22772/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 331; 83 SATC 295 (21 July 2020)

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with the rules and practice directives governing urgent applications, and that the urgency claimed was self-serving and contrived. The applicant had already secured an undertaking from the respondent not to execute on the civil judgment pending an application for suspension of payment, and subsequently delayed proceedings for several months. The applicant did not demonstrate irreparable prejudice, as it was able to repay the amount claimed and could recover it upon submission of valid acquittals. The credits for export refunds were not lawfully due without proof of export. The court held that the applicant abused the urgent court process...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 331
Parties
Applicant: BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 July 2020
Case Number
19955/2020, 22772/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict (part A) Pending Review (part B); Judgment on Part a
Outcome
Part A of both applications is dismissed with costs, including reserved costs and costs of two counsel.
Judges
SP Mothle
Legal Topics
Customs and Excise Act, Interim Interdict, Urgent Application Practice, Export Refund Liability, Acquittal Documentation
Tax Law Civil Procedure Customs and Excise Act Interim Interdict Urgent Application Practice Export Refund Liability Acquittal Documentation

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict (part A) Pending Review (part B); Judgment on Part a

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to interim interdict relief prohibiting execution of a civil judgment obtained under section 114 of the Customs and Excise Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applications brought by the applicant are urgent and comply with the rules and practice directives of the urgent court.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable prejudice if the interim interdict is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with the rules and practice directives governing urgent applications, and that the urgency claimed was self-serving and contrived. The applicant had already secured an undertaking from the respondent not to execute on the civil judgment pending an application for suspension of payment, and subsequently delayed proceedings for several months. The applicant did not demonstrate irreparable prejudice, as it was able to repay the amount claimed and could recover it upon submission of valid acquittals. The credits for export refunds were not lawfully due without proof of export. The court held that the applicant abused the urgent court process...

Court Disposition

Part A of both applications is dismissed with costs, including reserved costs and costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • Part A of the First Application under case no. 19955/2020 is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application to the respondent, including reserved costs of previous appearances and costs of two counsel.