Transet SOC Ltd and Another v CRRC E-Loco Supply (Pty) Ltd and Others (11645/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 228 (12 April 2022)

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
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Administrative Law Self Review Delay Defence Principle of Legality Just and Equitable Remedy Commercial Court Rules +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 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. 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. 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.