Hari and Others v Marikana Lesotho Long Distance Taxi Association and Others (321/04) [2005] ZANWHC 8 (1 January 2005)

Hari and Others v Marikana Lesotho Long Distance Taxi Association and Others (321/04) [2005] ZANWHC 8 (1 January 2005)

The court held that the respondents did not conduct cross-border road transport as defined by the Cross-Border Road Transport Act, since their vehicles did not cross the border into Lesotho and their intention was not to do so. The relevant intention under the Act is that of the operator, not the passengers. The respondents operated within South Africa and possessed the necessary permits for internal transport. The court further found that the disputes of fact regarding alleged unlawful conduct could not be resolved on the papers, and the applicants failed to establish a prima facie right to a final or interim interdict. The lower court erred in granting a final interdict without oral...

Citation
[2005] ZANWHC 8
Parties
Appellant: Solomon Hari; Appellant: Mishack Nkoma; Appellant: John Skalk; Appellant: Molefi Mpudi; Appellant: Richard Ntumzela; Appellant: Glen Setuke; Appellant: Ananias Mathebula; Appellant: Motihanke Eazy Tladi; Appellant: BTA Platinum Chrome Taxi Association; Respondent: Marikana Lesotho Long Distance Taxi Association; Respondent: Nathaniel Jupi Mabale; Respondent: Martin Goitsemang; Respondent: Dikobe Frans Letebele; Respondent: Alfred Mpaju Kole; Respondent: Kings Johannes Petlele; Respondent: Phatadi Adam Monisi; Respondent: Mpampa Calr Molotsane; Respondent: Monageng Elias Tshwagong; Respondent: Ernest Maniki Letsoko
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 January 2005
Case Number
321/04
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Full Bench Appeal
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of the court a quo set aside; costs awarded to respondents.
Judges
R D Hendricks, A A Landman, Samkelo Gura
Legal Topics
Cross Border Road Transport, Temporary Interdict, Permit Requirements, Internal Transportation
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Cross Border Road Transport Temporary Interdict Permit Requirements Internal Transportation

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Solomon Hari

Appellant

Mishack Nkoma

Appellant

John Skalk

Appellant

Molefi Mpudi

Appellant

Richard Ntumzela

Appellant

Glen Setuke

Appellant

Ananias Mathebula

Appellant

Motihanke Eazy Tladi

Appellant

BTA Platinum Chrome Taxi Association

Appellant

Marikana Lesotho Long Distance Taxi Association

Respondent

Nathaniel Jupi Mabale

Respondent

Martin Goitsemang

Respondent

Dikobe Frans Letebele

Respondent

Alfred Mpaju Kole

Respondent

Kings Johannes Petlele

Respondent

Phatadi Adam Monisi

Respondent

Mpampa Calr Molotsane

Respondent

Monageng Elias Tshwagong

Respondent

Ernest Maniki Letsoko

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Full Bench Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents conducted cross-border road transport without valid permits in contravention of the Cross-Border Road Transport Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents engaged in unlawful physical conduct justifying an interdict.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants established a prima facie right to an interim or final interdict.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondents did not conduct cross-border road transport as defined by the Cross-Border Road Transport Act, since their vehicles did not cross the border into Lesotho and their intention was not to do so. The relevant intention under the Act is that of the operator, not the passengers. The respondents operated within South Africa and possessed the necessary permits for internal transport. The court further found that the disputes of fact regarding alleged unlawful conduct could not be resolved on the papers, and the applicants failed to establish a prima facie right to a final or interim interdict. The lower court erred in granting a final interdict without oral...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of the court a quo set aside; costs awarded to respondents.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside.