Mogabudima Transport Services CC and Others v Gauteng Provincial Regulatory Entity and Others (23846/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 62 (28 January 2016)

Mogabudima Transport Services CC and Others v Gauteng Provincial Regulatory Entity and Others (23846/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 62 (28 January 2016)

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.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 62
Parties
Applicant: Mogabudima Transport Services CC SE Mogowe; Applicant: J Mogowe; Applicant: ME Nchabeleng; Applicant: JM Sepheu; Applicant: MP Nchabeleng; Applicant: GJ Mthobeni; Applicant: MF Ntsoane; Applicant: SD Ranala; Applicant: OL Motau; Applicant: RS Sello; Applicant: ME Lepelle; Applicant: KT Choma; Applicant: MJ Kgatuke; Applicant: MB Phasha; Respondent: Gauteng Provincial Regulatory Entity; Respondent: Limpopo Provincial Regulatory Entity; Respondent: Registrar of Transport, Gauteng Province; Respondent: Limpopo Province; Respondent: Boseka Boeja Taxi Association; Respondent: Masemola Taxi Association; Respondent: MV Sepheu; Respondent: Sefoka Makuwe Adam; Respondent: Nchabeleng Ditedi Maxwell; Respondent: Tladi Frans; Respondent: MA Mokgwadi
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 January 2016
Case Number
23846/2014
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Rescission or Declaration of Void Verdict
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mali
Legal Topics
Rescision of Administrative Decision, Membership Reinstatement, Permit Renewal, Costs Award
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Rescision of Administrative Decision Membership Reinstatement Permit Renewal Costs Award

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mogabudima Transport Services CC SE Mogowe

Applicant

J Mogowe

Applicant

ME Nchabeleng

Applicant

JM Sepheu

Applicant

MP Nchabeleng

Applicant

GJ Mthobeni

Applicant

MF Ntsoane

Applicant

SD Ranala

Applicant

OL Motau

Applicant

RS Sello

Applicant

ME Lepelle

Applicant

KT Choma

Applicant

MJ Kgatuke

Applicant

MB Phasha

Applicant

Gauteng Provincial Regulatory Entity

Respondent

Limpopo Provincial Regulatory Entity

Respondent

Registrar of Transport, Gauteng Province

Respondent

Limpopo Province

Respondent

Boseka Boeja Taxi Association

Respondent

Masemola Taxi Association

Respondent

MV Sepheu

Respondent

Sefoka Makuwe Adam

Respondent

Nchabeleng Ditedi Maxwell

Respondent

Tladi Frans

Respondent

MA Mokgwadi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Rescission or Declaration of Void Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the verdict issued by the third and fourth respondents on 18 July 2012 should be rescinded or declared void and unenforceable.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants should be reinstated as members of the fifth respondent and have their permits renewed.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants complied with procedural requirements for the relief sought.

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.

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.