Qibing Transport Ass and Others v Registrat of Public Transport and Others (3108/2011) [2012] ZAFSHC 105 (26 April 2012)

Qibing Transport Ass and Others v Registrat of Public Transport and Others (3108/2011) [2012] ZAFSHC 105 (26 April 2012)

The court found that the temporary operating licences in dispute had already lapsed by December 2011, rendering the application academic. No evidence was presented to prove that the licences were issued erroneously, and the applicants failed to exhaust internal remedies as required by law. The administrative error alleged was being addressed by the second respondent, and the respondents could not be blamed for operating on routes allocated to them. The court held that the matter was no longer live and dismissed the application for interdict. Each party was ordered to pay its own costs.

Citation
[2012] ZAFSHC 105
Parties
Applicant: Qibing Transport Association; Applicant: A.T. Mpiti; Applicant: M.A. Makhetha; Applicant: P.J. Ramathebane; Applicant: T.P. Phomane; Applicant: B. Khamali; Applicant: T.G. Lelala; Applicant: N. Makoti; Applicant: P.A. Shale; Applicant: M.P. Mifi; Applicant: M.L. Mokoena; Applicant: T.W. Lipholo; Applicant: M.V. Seleke; Applicant: W. Phethuka; Respondent: Registrar of Public Transport (Free State Province); Respondent: Free State Operating Licensing Board; Respondent: Mohanapuso Taxi Company Limited; Respondent: M.T. Motsie; Respondent: N.D. Mpedi; Respondent: P.J. Makheledise; Respondent: M.E. Tekelo; Respondent: Z.P. Lempe; Respondent: S.I. Ndlovu; Respondent: G.I. Guai; Respondent: M.M. Malefane; Respondent: N. Molefe; Respondent: P.E. Tsie; Respondent: T.P. Khuto; Respondent: N.K. Moahloli; Respondent: M.L. Moeketsi; Respondent: M.E. Tshabalala; Respondent: S.S. Molotsi; Respondent: G.P. Lencoe; Respondent: H.E. Mangesi; Respondent: H.E. Kaibane; Respondent: D. Majoe; Respondent: M.A. Phume; Respondent: E.D. Raseboka; Respondent: T.A. Magoje; Respondent: M.J. Mafereka; Respondent: M.E. Maputle; Respondent: T.J. Mahlatsi; Respondent: E. Maklein; Respondent: M. Motsetse; Respondent: M.A. Mpapa; Respondent: G. Nomana; Respondent: M. Khoabane; Respondent: B.P. Koribe; Respondent: J.P. Molotsi; Respondent: M.S. Rapita; Respondent: W. Gwilika; Respondent: S.S. Molelekoa; Respondent: M.P. Moroeng; Respondent: T.J. Stene; Respondent: D. Leteane; Respondent: M. Morake; Respondent: M.J. Mokone; Respondent: L.H. Lepota; Respondent: M.K. Teele; Respondent: T.D. Sethole; Respondent: K.H. Lowalala; Respondent: K.K. Molete; Respondent: M.I. Mamome; Respondent: N.R. Ntuka; Respondent: F.T. Matuwane; Respondent: S.C. Motsamai; Respondent: E.M. Silo; Respondent: M.K. Mereko; Respondent: M. Molete; Respondent: N.E. Maputle; Respondent: M. Malefane; Respondent: P. Kaibane
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 April 2012
Case Number
3108/2011
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for interdict dismissed. Each party to pay its own costs.
Judges
S. Chesiwe
Legal Topics
Operating Licences, Interdict, Internal Remedies, Administrative Error, Taxi Routes Regulation

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Qibing Transport Association

Applicant

A.T. Mpiti

Applicant

M.A. Makhetha

Applicant

P.J. Ramathebane

Applicant

T.P. Phomane

Applicant

B. Khamali

Applicant

T.G. Lelala

Applicant

N. Makoti

Applicant

P.A. Shale

Applicant

M.P. Mifi

Applicant

M.L. Mokoena

Applicant

T.W. Lipholo

Applicant

M.V. Seleke

Applicant

W. Phethuka

Applicant

Registrar of Public Transport (Free State Province)

Respondent

Free State Operating Licensing Board

Respondent

Mohanapuso Taxi Company Limited

Respondent

M.T. Motsie

Respondent

N.D. Mpedi

Respondent

P.J. Makheledise

Respondent

M.E. Tekelo

Respondent

Z.P. Lempe

Respondent

S.I. Ndlovu

Respondent

G.I. Guai

Respondent

M.M. Malefane

Respondent

N. Molefe

Respondent

P.E. Tsie

Respondent

T.P. Khuto

Respondent

N.K. Moahloli

Respondent

M.L. Moeketsi

Respondent

M.E. Tshabalala

Respondent

S.S. Molotsi

Respondent

G.P. Lencoe

Respondent

H.E. Mangesi

Respondent

H.E. Kaibane

Respondent

D. Majoe

Respondent

M.A. Phume

Respondent

E.D. Raseboka

Respondent

T.A. Magoje

Respondent

M.J. Mafereka

Respondent

M.E. Maputle

Respondent

T.J. Mahlatsi

Respondent

E. Maklein

Respondent

M. Motsetse

Respondent

M.A. Mpapa

Respondent

G. Nomana

Respondent

M. Khoabane

Respondent

B.P. Koribe

Respondent

J.P. Molotsi

Respondent

M.S. Rapita

Respondent

W. Gwilika

Respondent

S.S. Molelekoa

Respondent

M.P. Moroeng

Respondent

T.J. Stene

Respondent

D. Leteane

Respondent

M. Morake

Respondent

M.J. Mokone

Respondent

L.H. Lepota

Respondent

M.K. Teele

Respondent

T.D. Sethole

Respondent

K.H. Lowalala

Respondent

K.K. Molete

Respondent

M.I. Mamome

Respondent

N.R. Ntuka

Respondent

F.T. Matuwane

Respondent

S.C. Motsamai

Respondent

E.M. Silo

Respondent

M.K. Mereko

Respondent

M. Molete

Respondent

N.E. Maputle

Respondent

M. Malefane

Respondent

P. Kaibane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the temporary public carrier permits issued to the fourth to fifty ninth respondents should be withdrawn.
  2. 2 Whether the fourth to fifty ninth respondents should be interdicted and restrained from operating on the disputed routes.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants exhausted internal remedies before approaching the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the temporary operating licences in dispute had already lapsed by December 2011, rendering the application academic. No evidence was presented to prove that the licences were issued erroneously, and the applicants failed to exhaust internal remedies as required by law. The administrative error alleged was being addressed by the second respondent, and the respondents could not be blamed for operating on routes allocated to them. The court held that the matter was no longer live and dismissed the application for interdict. Each party was ordered to pay its own costs.

Court Disposition

Application for interdict dismissed. Each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • The application for interdict is dismissed.
  • Each party is ordered to pay its own costs.