Muller v Trencor Service (Pty) Ltd (397/81) [1985] ZASCA 5 (27 March 1985)

Muller v Trencor Service (Pty) Ltd (397/81) [1985] ZASCA 5 (27 March 1985)

The court held that the appellant's permit only authorised the transportation of cement if it was destined for shaft sinking operations. The phrase 'shaft sinking equipment' must be interpreted to mean apparatus or material intended for use in shaft sinking, not any item that could conceivably be used for that purpose. The court found that the interdict granted by Burger J on 7 April 1983 necessarily restrained the conveyance of cement not earmarked for shaft sinking. The appellant's broader interpretation would lead to absurd results and was not the intention of the issuing authority. The court further held that the appellant had failed to comply with the interdict by transporting cement...

Citation
[1985] ZASCA 5
Parties
Appellant: Eric André Muller; Respondent: Trencor Services (Pty) Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 March 1985
Case Number
397/81
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Corbett, Miller, Van Heerden, Nicholas, Eloff
Legal Topics
Road Transportation Permit, Interpretation of Court Orders, Statutory Construction, Compliance With Interdict
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Road Transportation Permit Interpretation of Court Orders Statutory Construction Compliance With Interdict

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eric André Muller

Appellant

Trencor Services (Pty) Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's public road carrier permit authorised the transportation of cement for purposes other than shaft sinking operations.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant contravened the interdict granted by the court on 7 April 1983 by transporting cement not destined for shaft sinking.
  3. 3 How the phrase 'shaft sinking equipment' in the permit should be interpreted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant's permit only authorised the transportation of cement if it was destined for shaft sinking operations. The phrase 'shaft sinking equipment' must be interpreted to mean apparatus or material intended for use in shaft sinking, not any item that could conceivably be used for that purpose. The court found that the interdict granted by Burger J on 7 April 1983 necessarily restrained the conveyance of cement not earmarked for shaft sinking. The appellant's broader interpretation would lead to absurd results and was not the intention of the issuing authority. The court further held that the appellant had failed to comply with the interdict by transporting cement...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs consequent on the employment of two counsel.
  • The declaratory orders granted by the court a quo are confirmed.