Algoa Bus Company (Pty) Ltd v Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2202/2019) [2022] ZAECGHC 7 (15 February 2022)
The court found that the plaintiff became aware of the administrative action and the reasons for it at the latest in October 2018, when it received the VOCA. Despite this, the plaintiff delayed instituting review proceedings until July 2019, a period of approximately nine months, without providing a cogent...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] ZAECGHC 7
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Algoa Bus Company (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality; Defendant: Spectrum Alert ITS (Pty) Limited; Defendant: Algoa Taxi Association; Defendant: Northern Areas Taxi Association; Defendant: Member of the Executive Council for Transport and Public Works: Eastern Cape; Defendant: Minister of Transport
- Court
- Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 15 February 2022
- Case Number
- 2202/2019
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Final Judgment After Separation of Issues; Condonation and Merits Decided
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's application for condonation of non-compliance with section 7(1) of PAJA is dismissed. Plaintiff's action is dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where so employed.
- Judges
- Jolwana
- Legal Topics
- Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Condonation of Delay, Legality Principle, Municipal Procurement, Review of Administrative Action
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Algoa Bus Company (Pty) Ltd
Plaintiff
Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality
Defendant
Spectrum Alert ITS (Pty) Limited
Defendant
Algoa Taxi Association
Defendant
Northern Areas Taxi Association
Defendant
Member of the Executive Council for Transport and Public Works: Eastern Cape
Defendant
Minister of Transport
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment After Separation of Issues; Condonation and Merits Decided
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff instituted review proceedings within the time limits prescribed by section 7(1)(b) of PAJA.
- 2 Whether the delay in instituting proceedings should be condoned under section 9 of PAJA.
- 3 Whether the Vehicle Operating Company Agreement (VOCA) was invalid for non-compliance with section 41 of the National Land Transport Act and procurement legislation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff became aware of the administrative action and the reasons for it at the latest in October 2018, when it received the VOCA. Despite this, the plaintiff delayed instituting review proceedings until July 2019, a period of approximately nine months, without providing a cogent explanation for the delay. The plaintiff's ongoing engagements and pursuit of compensation did not justify the failure to act within the statutory 180-day period prescribed by PAJA. The court held that the interests of justice did not require condonation of the delay, as the plaintiff's conduct was motivated by financial interests rather than a genuine concern for legality. Furthermore,...
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's application for condonation of non-compliance with section 7(1) of PAJA is dismissed. Plaintiff's action is dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where so employed.
Orders
- The plaintiff's application for condonation of its non-compliance with section 7(1) of PAJA is dismissed.
- The plaintiff's action is dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where so employed.
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