Transet SOC Ltd and Another v CRRC E-Loco Supply (Pty) Ltd and Others (11645/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 228 (12 April 2022)
The court held that the delay defence in a self-review application under the principle of legality is not a discrete issue capable of separation from the merits. The delay must be considered together with the merits, as the assessment of whether to overlook delay is a flexible, fact-specific enquiry involving the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] ZAGPJHC 228
- Parties
- Applicant: Transnet SOC Ltd; Applicant: Special Investigating Unit; Respondent: CRRC E-Loco Supply (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Bombardier Transportation South Africa (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: CRRC SA Rolling Stock (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Wabtec South Africa Technologies (Pty) Ltd
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 12 April 2022
- Case Number
- 11645/2021
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Rule 30 Application to Set Aside an Irregular Step
- Outcome
- Rule 30 application granted; delay application set aside as irregular.
- Judges
- R Sutherland
- Legal Topics
- Self Review, Delay Defence, Principle of Legality, Just and Equitable Remedy, Commercial Court Rules, Irregular Step
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Transnet SOC Ltd
Applicant
Special Investigating Unit
Applicant
CRRC E-Loco Supply (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Bombardier Transportation South Africa (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
CRRC SA Rolling Stock (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Wabtec South Africa Technologies (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Rule 30 Application to Set Aside an Irregular Step
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a respondent may bring a separate application to dismiss a self-review on the sole ground of delay before entering the main case.
- 2 Whether the delay defence in a self-review under the principle of legality can be separated from the merits and disposed of as a discrete issue.
- 3 Whether the Commercial Court rules or inherent jurisdiction permit deviation from established procedure to allow such a process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the delay defence in a self-review application under the principle of legality is not a discrete issue capable of separation from the merits. The delay must be considered together with the merits, as the assessment of whether to overlook delay is a flexible, fact-specific enquiry involving the nature of the irregularity and the just and equitable remedy. The Commercial Court rules do not empower a judge to sanction a process that contradicts the rights of the parties under the Uniform Rules of Court. It is impermissible for a respondent to outflank the applicant by launching a separate application to dismiss the main case on delay grounds without engaging with the...
Court Disposition
Rule 30 application granted; delay application set aside as irregular.
Orders
- The rule 30 application is granted.
- The first respondent is directed to withdraw its delay application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment