Empire Crossing Development (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister of Energy and Others (71333/2018) [2022] ZAGPPHC 523 (21 July 2022)

Empire Crossing Development (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister of Energy and Others (71333/2018) [2022] ZAGPPHC 523 (21 July 2022)

The court held that the Controller was correct in refusing to accept Texicam's retail licence application because the Regulations require retail licence applications to be lodged together with corresponding site licence applications. The attempted submission by Texicam was contrary to the Regulations, and the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 523
Parties
Applicant: Empire Crossing Development (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Texicam Investments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Minister of Energy; Respondent: Controller of Petroleum Products; Respondent: Tom Campher Motors; Respondent: Engen Empire Crossing
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 July 2022
Case Number
71333/2018
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs awarded to the first, second, and third respondents, including costs for two counsel.
Judges
E M Kubushi
Legal Topics
Petroleum Products Act, Licensing Regulations, Ultra Vires Review, Internal Appeal, Functus Officio
Administrative Law Land and Property Petroleum Products Act Licensing Regulations Ultra Vires Review Internal Appeal Functus Officio

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Empire Crossing Development (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Texicam Investments (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Minister of Energy

Respondent

Controller of Petroleum Products

Respondent

Tom Campher Motors

Respondent

Engen Empire Crossing

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Controller was correct in refusing to accept Texicam's retail licence application.
  2. 2 Whether Empire Crossing's site licence application pending on appeal could serve as a corresponding application to Texicam's retail licence application.
  3. 3 Whether regulation 6(2)(a) of the Petroleum Products Site and Retail Licence Regulations is ultra vires the Petroleum Products Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Controller was correct in refusing to accept Texicam's retail licence application because the Regulations require retail licence applications to be lodged together with corresponding site licence applications. The attempted submission by Texicam was contrary to the Regulations, and the Controller was functus officio after adjudicating and rejecting the original applications. The appeal by Empire Crossing did not revive the site licence application, and without a corresponding retail licence application, the Minister could not consider the appeal. The court further held that regulation 6(2)(a) is not ultra vires the Act, as previously determined in Westvaal Holdings...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs awarded to the first, second, and third respondents, including costs for two counsel.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, to pay the costs of the first, second, and third respondents on a party and party scale.