Kekaka v United Zebediela Taxi Association and Others (25131/2008) [2009] ZAGPPHC 202 (23 June 2009)
The court found that the first respondent's reliance on a requirement to submit six months' bank statements was not supported by the association's constitution. The policy document cited by the respondent was not authorised by the constitution and therefore could not lawfully be imposed on the applicant. The dispute...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] ZAGPPHC 202
- Parties
- Applicant: L.A Kekaka; Respondent: United Zebediela Taxi Association; Respondent: Capricorn District Taxi Association; Respondent: Registration of Department of Roads & Transport for Limpopo Province
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 25131/2008
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Reasons for Order Following Urgent Application
- Outcome
- Application granted; first respondent ordered to allow applicant to operate the vehicle and to pay costs.
- Judges
- P Ellis
- Legal Topics
- Association Membership Rights, Constitution of Association, Policy Vs Constitution, Urgent Interdict
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
L.A Kekaka
Applicant
United Zebediela Taxi Association
Respondent
Capricorn District Taxi Association
Respondent
Registration of Department of Roads & Transport for Limpopo Province
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Reasons for Order Following Urgent Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the first respondent lawfully refused or delayed the applicant's request to operate a third taxi within the association's jurisdiction.
- 2 Whether the requirement to submit six months' bank statements was valid under the association's constitution.
- 3 Whether the applicant was entitled to relief and costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the first respondent's reliance on a requirement to submit six months' bank statements was not supported by the association's constitution. The policy document cited by the respondent was not authorised by the constitution and therefore could not lawfully be imposed on the applicant. The dispute over whether the applicant submitted bank statements was irrelevant. The applicant was entitled to operate his third taxi, and the first respondent was ordered to allow this and to pay the costs of the application.
Court Disposition
Application granted; first respondent ordered to allow applicant to operate the vehicle and to pay costs.
Orders
- The first respondent is ordered to allow vehicle bearing registration number Logodi L online with the first respondent and the applicant is allowed to operate said vehicle.
- The first respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
NOT REPORTABLE
IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA
(REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
CASE NUMBER: 25131/2008
DATE:23/06/2009
In the matter between:
L.A KEKAKA …...................................................................................APPLICANT
and
UNITED ZEBEDIELA TAXI ASSOCIATION......................1ST RESPONDENT
CAPRICORN DISTRICT TAXI ASSOCIATION................2nd RESPONDENT
REGISTRATION OF DEPARTMENT OF ROADS
& TRANSPORT FOR LIMPOPO PROVINCE..................3rd RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
[1] On 9 September 2008 I gave an order, in the Urgent Court, in terms of prayer of the notice of motion, and I ordered the first respondent to pay the costs of me application.
[2] The first respondent on 23 September 2008 filed a notice in terms of Rule 49(1 )(c) calling for reasons for the order. This request only came to my notice some months later at a time when I was. due to serious illness, not able to deal therewith.
[3] My reasons follow herewith.
[4] The applicant is a member of the first respondent, a taxi association. According to the constitution of the Association, the object of the association is inter alia to promote, advance and protect the interests of its members. It is also recorded therein that members are limited to four taxis in the area of operation of the association. The applicant had two, and acquired a third. He applied for “permission" from the association to operate it in the associations’ area of jurisdiction, or as
it was put in the papers to "place (he vehicle on-line".
[5] It is the applicant's case, in a nutshell, that his application was not granted or that the granting thereof was delayed inordinately.
[6] The first respondent contended that the applicant's application had not complied with its constitution because he did not submit six months' bank statements with his application. That “requirement” does not appear from the constitution, but from a "policy document, attached to the answering affidavit. The deponent on behalf erroneously referred to this document as the correct constitution" which it is not,
[7] The constitution referred to by the applicant does not authorise the issue of such a policy. I have not been given any other document which authorises such a policy
[8] I therefore hold that the first respondent could not in law rely on such a requirement, i.e. that six months’ bank statements be submitted, and the dispute as to whether or not it was done, is irrelevant.
[9] I therefore made an order in the following terms:
“1. That the first respondent be ordered to allow vehicle bearing registration number Logodi L online with the first respondent and that the applicant be allowed to operate said vehicle.
2. That the first respondent be ordered to pay the costs of this application."
P. ELLIS
ACTING JUDGE OF THE COURT