Zevoli 158 (Pty) Ltd t/a Cancom and Others v The Road Traffic Infringement Agency and Others (82085/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 837 (11 December 2015)

Zevoli 158 (Pty) Ltd t/a Cancom and Others v The Road Traffic Infringement Agency and Others (82085/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 837 (11 December 2015)

The court found that the applicants failed to discharge the onus of proving the existence and terms of a settlement agreement binding the first respondent to refrain from issuing enforcement orders and blocks against their vehicles. The evidence did not establish that the first respondent received or accepted the communication (FA8) purporting to extend the agreement to all applicants and their clients. In the absence of proof of receipt and acceptance, no binding contract existed on the terms alleged. The factual dispute raised by the first respondent was genuine and could not be resolved on the papers in favour of the applicants. Consequently, the application for final interdictory...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 837
Parties
Applicant: Zevoli 158 (Pty) Ltd t/a Cancom; Applicant: Avis Rent a Car a division of Barloworld South Africa (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Imperial Car Rental (Pty) Ltd t/a Europcar; Applicant: Bidvest Car Rental (Pty) Ltd t/a Budget Car and Van Rental; Applicant: CMH Car Hire (Pty) Ltd t/a First Car Rental; Applicant: ER24 EMS (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The Road Traffic Infringement Agency; Respondent: Minister of Transport; Respondent: Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 December 2015
Case Number
82085/2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination of Urgent Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel.
Judges
P.M. Mabuse
Legal Topics
Interdict, Burden of Proof, Contractual Settlement, Administrative Adjudication of Road Offences
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Interdict Burden of Proof Contractual Settlement Administrative Adjudication of Road Offences

Case Brief

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zevoli 158 (Pty) Ltd t/a Cancom

Applicant

Avis Rent a Car a division of Barloworld South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Imperial Car Rental (Pty) Ltd t/a Europcar

Applicant

Bidvest Car Rental (Pty) Ltd t/a Budget Car and Van Rental

Applicant

CMH Car Hire (Pty) Ltd t/a First Car Rental

Applicant

ER24 EMS (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

The Road Traffic Infringement Agency

Respondent

Minister of Transport

Respondent

Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination of Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants proved the existence and terms of a settlement agreement binding the first respondent to refrain from issuing enforcement orders and blocks against their vehicles.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent received and accepted the communication (FA8) extending the settlement agreement to all applicants and their clients.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants discharged the onus of proof required to obtain final interdictory relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to discharge the onus of proving the existence and terms of a settlement agreement binding the first respondent to refrain from issuing enforcement orders and blocks against their vehicles. The evidence did not establish that the first respondent received or accepted the communication (FA8) purporting to extend the agreement to all applicants and their clients. In the absence of proof of receipt and acceptance, no binding contract existed on the terms alleged. The factual dispute raised by the first respondent was genuine and could not be resolved on the papers in favour of the applicants. Consequently, the application for final interdictory...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, which costs shall include the costs consequent upon the employment of a senior counsel.