Central African Services (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister of Transport and Another (32238/2011) [2013] ZAGPPHC 549 (15 February 2013)

Central African Services (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister of Transport and Another (32238/2011) [2013] ZAGPPHC 549 (15 February 2013)

The court found that the 2011 Cross-Border Road Transport Amendment Regulations were published in a manner inconsistent with section 6(3) of the Constitution, as they were initially promulgated only in English and not in two official languages. This rendered the regulations invalid for the period between 1 April 2011 and 28 October 2011, until the defect was cured by repromulgation in Afrikaans. The process leading to the promulgation of the regulations was procedurally unfair: the basis for the substantial increases in permit fees was not disclosed to stakeholders, preventing meaningful public comment; the board failed to properly consider the draft regulations, and the meeting at which...

Citation
[2013] ZAGPPHC 549
Parties
Applicant: Central African Services (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Deernam (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Minister of Transport; Respondent: Cross-Border Road Transport Agency
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 February 2013
Case Number
32238/2011
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment After Hearing and Reserved Decision
Outcome
Application granted in part; regulations declared invalid for specified period; constitutional challenge on money bill dismissed; costs awarded substantially to applicants.
Judges
T M Makgoka
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Publication of Regulations, Consultation Requirements, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Constitutional Language Requirements, Money Bill Challenge
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Procedural Fairness Publication of Regulations Consultation Requirements Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Constitutional Language Requirements +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Central African Services (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Deernam (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Minister of Transport

Respondent

Cross-Border Road Transport Agency

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment After Hearing and Reserved Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Were the 2011 Cross-Border Road Transport Amendment Regulations published in accordance with constitutional and statutory requirements.
  2. 2 Did the Minister and the Agency comply with their constitutional and statutory duties to ensure procedural fairness and proper consultation.
  3. 3 Was the exclusion of a board member and lack of quorum at the relevant meeting fatal to the validity of the regulations.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 2011 Cross-Border Road Transport Amendment Regulations were published in a manner inconsistent with section 6(3) of the Constitution, as they were initially promulgated only in English and not in two official languages. This rendered the regulations invalid for the period between 1 April 2011 and 28 October 2011, until the defect was cured by repromulgation in Afrikaans. The process leading to the promulgation of the regulations was procedurally unfair: the basis for the substantial increases in permit fees was not disclosed to stakeholders, preventing meaningful public comment; the board failed to properly consider the draft regulations, and the meeting at which...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; regulations declared invalid for specified period; constitutional challenge on money bill dismissed; costs awarded substantially to applicants.

Orders

  • It is declared that the 2011 Cross-Border Road Transport Amendment Regulations published in Government Notice No R284 on 31 March 2011 were published in a manner inconsistent with section 6(3) of the Constitution and were invalid for the period between 1 April 2011 and 28 October 2011.
  • The invalidity period shall have no effect on permit fees and/or penalties paid during that period.