Department of Transport and Others v Tasima (Pty) Limited (44095/2012) [2017] ZAGPPHC 357 (24 April 2017)
The court found that both the date of 23 June 2015, when contractual obligations ceased, and the 'guillotine date' of 9 November 2016, when compliance with court orders was constitutionally required, were relevant. The majority judgment of the Constitutional Court clearly distinguished between these principles, and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] ZAGPPHC 357
- Parties
- Applicant: Department of Transport; Applicant: Director-General: Department of Transport; Applicant: Minister of Transport; Applicant: Werner Eduard Koekemoer; Applicant: Road Traffic Management Corporation; Applicant: Collins Letsoalo; Applicant: Kevin Joshua Kara-vala; Applicant: Morn Gerber; Applicant: Gilberto Martins; Applicant: Chris Hlabisa; Applicant: Makhosini Msibi; Respondent: Tasima (Pty) Ltd
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 44095/2012
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Bench
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- S. Potterill
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Enforcement of Court Orders, Contractual Obligations, Constitutional Compliance
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Department of Transport
Applicant
Director-General: Department of Transport
Applicant
Minister of Transport
Applicant
Werner Eduard Koekemoer
Applicant
Road Traffic Management Corporation
Applicant
Collins Letsoalo
Applicant
Kevin Joshua Kara-vala
Applicant
Morn Gerber
Applicant
Gilberto Martins
Applicant
Chris Hlabisa
Applicant
Makhosini Msibi
Applicant
Tasima (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Bench
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants were required to perform in terms of the court orders up to the 'guillotine date' of 9 November 2016 or another date.
- 2 Whether another court would reasonably differ from the findings regarding the relevant dates for performance.
- 3 Whether the approval of PRQs and site sign-offs dated before 9 November 2016 was correct and undisputed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that both the date of 23 June 2015, when contractual obligations ceased, and the 'guillotine date' of 9 November 2016, when compliance with court orders was constitutionally required, were relevant. The majority judgment of the Constitutional Court clearly distinguished between these principles, and the present judgment adhered to them. The applicants failed to provide any facts disputing the correctness of the PRQs and site sign-offs dated before 9 November 2016, and previous orders were made on this basis without adverse consequences. The court was not convinced that another court would reach a different conclusion and dismissed the application for leave to appeal.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
49 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
NOT REPORTABLE
NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES
NOT REVISED
Case Number: 44095/2012
In the matter between:
THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT First Applicant
THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL: DEPARTMENT OF Second Applicant
TRANSPORT
THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT Third
Applicant
WERNER EDUARD KOEKEMOER Fourth
Applicant
ROAD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CORPORATION Fifth
Applicant
COLLINS LETSOALO Sixth Applicant
KEVIN JOSHUA KARA-VALA Seventh
Applicant
MORN GERBER Eighth
Applicant
GILBERTO MARTINS Ninth
Applicant
CHRIS HLABISA Tenth
Applicant
MAKHOSINI MSIBI Eleventh
Applicant
and
TASIMA (PTY) LTD Respondent
JUDGMENT: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
POTTERILL J
[1] The first, second, third, sixth, seventh, tenth and eleventh applicants ("applicants·) are applying for leave to
appeal to the Full Bench against paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19 and 21 of the judgment and paragraphs 23.1, 23. 2 and 23.4 of the orders granted by this court.
[2] In essence the appeal revolves around whether the applicants had to perform in terms of the court orders up to the "guillotine date” of 9 November 2016; date of the Constitutional Court order or on 23 June 2015; the date of the granting of the counter application by Hughes J
[3] I am unconvinced that another court will differ from this finding. Both dates are relevant; 23 June 2015 is the date that the parties had no further contractual obligations. The 9th of November 2016 is the date up to which all court orders must constitutionally be complied with. I am satisfied that the majority
judgment of the Constitutional Court clearly distinguishes between these two principles and that in this Judgment these principles have been adhered to.[4] I ordered the approval of all PRQ's and site sign-offs dated before 9 November 2016 within three (3) days from the date of the order. I am satisfied that another court will not come to a different conclusion. On the papers the applicants herein set out no facts as to why these PRQ's and site sign-offs could not be approved and was not correct. The correctness of the PRQ's and site sign-offs were thus not in dispute. Furthermore, all the previous orders, also those made by agreement between the parties, were ordered on this basis without any problematic consequences.
[5] The application for leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs
_____________________
S. POTTERILL
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
CASE NO: 44095/2012
HEARD ON: 20 April 2017
FOR THE 1ST- 3RD, 6TH and 9TH APPLICANTS: ADV. J.A. MOTEPE SC
INSTRUCTED BY: STATE ATTORNEY
FOR THE S1" and 11th APPLICANTS: ADV. J.A. MOTEPE SC
INSTRUCTED BY: Selepe Attorneys
FOR THE RESPONDENT: ADV. A.E. FRANKLIN SC AND ADV. J.P. MCNALLY SC
INSTRUCTED BY: Webber Wentzel Attorneys
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24 April 2017