Mogabudima Transport Services CC and Others v Gauteng Provincial Regulatory Entity and Others (23846/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 62 (28 January 2016)
- Citation
- [2016] ZAGPPHC 62
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Mali
- Case number
- 23846/2014
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Mali
- Case number
- 23846/2014
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicants failed to appear and did not comply with procedural requirements necessary for the relief sought. The notice of set down was properly served, yet the applicants did not present arguments or evidence to support their application. The respondents' opposition was upheld, and the application was dismissed. The court further ordered the applicants to pay the costs of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and eleventh respondents on an attorney and client scale, reflecting the lack of merit and the unnecessary litigation caused by the application.
Court disposition
Application dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application is dismissed with costs.
- Applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and eleventh respondents on attorney and client scale.
02
Material facts
Parties
Mogabudima Transport Services CC SE Mogowe
ApplicantJ Mogowe
ApplicantME Nchabeleng
ApplicantJM Sepheu
ApplicantMP Nchabeleng
ApplicantGJ Mthobeni
ApplicantMF Ntsoane
ApplicantSD Ranala
ApplicantOL Motau
ApplicantRS Sello
ApplicantME Lepelle
ApplicantKT Choma
ApplicantMJ Kgatuke
ApplicantMB Phasha
ApplicantGauteng Provincial Regulatory Entity
Respondent Counsel: Mr GwarhuLimpopo Provincial Regulatory Entity
Respondent Counsel: Mr GwarhuRegistrar of Transport, Gauteng Province
Respondent Counsel: Mr GwarhuLimpopo Province
Respondent Counsel: Mr GwarhuBoseka Boeja Taxi Association
Respondent Counsel: Ramushu Morare Inc.Masemola Taxi Association
RespondentMV Sepheu
RespondentSefoka Makuwe Adam
RespondentNchabeleng Ditedi Maxwell
RespondentTladi Frans
RespondentMA Mokgwadi
Respondent Counsel: Ramushu Morare Inc.03
Procedural history
Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Rescission or Declaration of Void Verdict
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the verdict issued by the third and fourth respondents on 18 July 2012 should be rescinded or declared void and unenforceable.
- 02
Whether the applicants should be reinstated as members of the fifth respondent and have their permits renewed.
- 03
Whether the applicants complied with procedural requirements for the relief sought.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants sought an order to rescind or declare void the verdict issued by the third and fourth respondents, arguing that the decision was invalid and unenforceable. They further requested reinstatement as members of the fifth respondent and renewal of their permits, claiming entitlement based on their previous membership.
- Respondent
- The respondents opposed the application, arguing that the applicants failed to comply with procedural requirements and that the verdict issued was valid and enforceable. They contended that the applicants were not entitled to reinstatement or renewal of permits and sought dismissal of the application with costs.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 3 of 2000
A party seeking rescission of an administrative decision must demonstrate procedural irregularity or substantive grounds for invalidity.
- 02
Standard costs principles in South African civil procedure
Costs may be awarded on an attorney and client scale where the application is found to be without merit and causes unnecessary litigation.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to appear and did not comply with procedural requirements necessary for the relief sought. The notice of set down was properly served, yet the applicants did not present arguments or evidence to support their application. The respondents' opposition was upheld, and the application was dismissed. The court further ordered the applicants to pay the costs of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and eleventh respondents on an attorney and client scale, reflecting the lack of merit and the unnecessary litigation caused by the application.
Obiter and limits
- The absence of the applicants and their failure to prosecute the application undermined their case and justified dismissal.
- Proper service of notice of set down is essential to ensure procedural fairness, but parties must act diligently to pursue their claims.
Court disposition
Application dismissed with costs.
- The application is dismissed with costs.
- Applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and eleventh respondents on attorney and client scale.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
28/01/2016
CASE NO: 23846/2014
NOT REPORTABLE
NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES
In the matter between:
MOGABUDIMA TRANSPORT SERVICES CC SE MOGOWE 1st Applicant
J MOGOWE 2nd Applicant
ME NCHABELENG 3rd Applicant
JM SEPHEU 4th Applicant
MP NCHABELENG 5th Applicant
GJ MTHOBENI 6th Applicant
MF NTSOANE 7th Applicant
SD RANALA 8th Applicant
OL MOTAU 9th Applicant
RS SELLO 10th Applicant
ME LEPELLE 11th Applicant
KT CHOMA 12th Applicant
MJ KGATUKE 13th Applicant
MB PHASHA 14th Applicant
And
THE GAUTENG PROVINCIAL REGULATORY ENTITY 1st Respondent
THE LIMPOPO PROVINCIAL REGULATORY ENTITY 2nd Respondent
THE REGISTRAR OF TRANSPORT,
GAUTENG PROVINCE 3rd Respondent
LIMPOPO PROVINCE 4th Respondent
BOSEKA BOEJA TAXI ASSOCIATION 5th Respondent
MASEMOLA TAXI ASSOCIATION 6th Respondent
MV SEPHEU 7th
Respondent
SEFOKA MAKUWE ADAM 8th Respondent
NCHABELENG DITEDI MAXWELL 9th Respondent
TLADI FRANS 10th Respondent
MA MOKGWADI 11th Respondent
JUDGMENT
MALI AJ
[1] This is an application for an order to rescind, alternatively to declare void and unenforceable the verdict issued by the third and fourth respondents on 18 July 2012. The application further seeks the following:
1.1. an order directing the third respondent to reinstate the First applicants as members of the fifth respondent; and
1.2. an order directing the third respondent to reinstate the applicants as members of the fifth respondent and to renew their permits which they were entitled to as members of the fifth respondent.
[2] There was no appearance on behalf of all the applicants. I am satisfied that the notice of set down was served upon the applicants on 12 October 2015.
[3] Counsel, Mr Gwarha appeared on behalf of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents. Counsel, Mr Morare appeared on behalf of 5th and 11th respondent.
[4] There was no appearance on behalf of 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and the 10th respondent.
[5] Having heard Counsel the application is dismissed with costs.
5.1 Applicants are ordered to pay costs of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th 5th and 11th respondents on attorney and client scale.
______
MALI AJ ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
Counsel for the Applicants: Instructed by:
No appearance No appearance
Counsel for 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents: MR
GWARHU
Counsel for 5 and 11 th Respondents: RAMUSHU
MORARE INC.
Date of Hearing: 14 October 2015
Date of Judgment: 29 January 2016
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.