Mokoshane and Others v Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Roads and Transport, Gauteng Provincial Department and Others (2023/084551) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1021 (11 September 2023)

Mokoshane and Others v Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Roads and Transport, Gauteng Provincial Department and Others (2023/084551) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1021 (11 September 2023)

The court found that the applicants were not unlawfully deprived of possession of their vehicles. The impoundment was effected in terms of sections 50 and 87 of the National Land Transport Act, which require operating licences for vehicles used in public transport services. E-hailing services, although not specifically regulated, are classified as a sub-category of metered taxis and are subject to the same licensing requirements. The authorities acted within their statutory powers, and the applicants failed to prove unlawful ouster as required for the mandament van spolie. The application was dismissed against the remaining respondents, and costs were awarded accordingly.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1021
Parties
Applicant: Pholoso Mokoshane; Applicant: Sbongiseni Elvis Mkize; Applicant: Sandile Phakathi; Applicant: Nkanyiso Molefe; Applicant: Lawrence Frans Tsekelele; Applicant: Laure Lindau; Applicant: Marshall Chiname; Applicant: Tshepo Baloyi; Applicant: Titos Nyerengai; Applicant: Methuli Moyo; Applicant: Mpho Sean Bokaba; Applicant: Phendulani Msiya; Applicant: Khothatso David Molefe; Applicant: Mpho Given Maweya; Applicant: Hlamulo Owen Mabulana; Applicant: George Sarkuwanza; Applicant: Pardon Mandida; Applicant: Givemore Maphosa; Applicant: Tebogo Justice; Applicant: Siyabonga Hlazane; Applicant: Xolani Nkosi; Applicant: Michael Molefe; Applicant: Clever Mupundiko; Applicant: Bolt Services ZA (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Roads and Transport, Gauteng Provincial Government; Respondent: City of Johannesburg Local Municipality; Respondent: Minister of Police; Respondent: National Commissioner: Gauteng for the South African Police Services; Respondent: Provincial Commissioner: Gauteng for the South African Police Services
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 September 2023
Case Number
2023/084551
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed against the remaining respondents; withdrawn against the second respondent with costs.
Judges
Moorcroft
Legal Topics
Mandament Van Spolie, Impoundment of Vehicles, E Hailing Regulation, Operating Licence Requirements, Public Transport Legislation
Administrative Law Land and Property Mandament Van Spolie Impoundment of Vehicles E Hailing Regulation Operating Licence Requirements Public Transport Legislation

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pholoso Mokoshane

Applicant

Sbongiseni Elvis Mkize

Applicant

Sandile Phakathi

Applicant

Nkanyiso Molefe

Applicant

Lawrence Frans Tsekelele

Applicant

Laure Lindau

Applicant

Marshall Chiname

Applicant

Tshepo Baloyi

Applicant

Titos Nyerengai

Applicant

Methuli Moyo

Applicant

Mpho Sean Bokaba

Applicant

Phendulani Msiya

Applicant

Khothatso David Molefe

Applicant

Mpho Given Maweya

Applicant

Hlamulo Owen Mabulana

Applicant

George Sarkuwanza

Applicant

Pardon Mandida

Applicant

Givemore Maphosa

Applicant

Tebogo Justice

Applicant

Siyabonga Hlazane

Applicant

Xolani Nkosi

Applicant

Michael Molefe

Applicant

Clever Mupundiko

Applicant

Bolt Services ZA (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Roads and Transport, Gauteng Provincial Government

Respondent

City of Johannesburg Local Municipality

Respondent

Minister of Police

Respondent

National Commissioner: Gauteng for the South African Police Services

Respondent

Provincial Commissioner: Gauteng for the South African Police Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants were unlawfully deprived of possession of their vehicles by the authorities.
  2. 2 Whether the impoundment of e-hailing vehicles without operating licences was lawful under the National Land Transport Act.
  3. 3 Whether e-hailing services are specifically regulated under current legislation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants were not unlawfully deprived of possession of their vehicles. The impoundment was effected in terms of sections 50 and 87 of the National Land Transport Act, which require operating licences for vehicles used in public transport services. E-hailing services, although not specifically regulated, are classified as a sub-category of metered taxis and are subject to the same licensing requirements. The authorities acted within their statutory powers, and the applicants failed to prove unlawful ouster as required for the mandament van spolie. The application was dismissed against the remaining respondents, and costs were awarded accordingly.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed against the remaining respondents; withdrawn against the second respondent with costs.

Orders

  • By agreement, the application is withdrawn as against the second respondent and the applicants are ordered to pay the second respondent's wasted costs.
  • The application as against the remaining respondents is dismissed.