REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA 
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
CASE NO: 72861/12
DATE: 24 FEBRUARY 2016

In the matter between:

JOHANNESBURG BARA QWAQWA TRANSPORT SERVICES TAXI
ASSOCIATION (PTY) LTD (JBQQTA)	APPLICANT
And
THE GAUTENG PROVINCIAL TRANSPORT REGULATOR ENTITY	18T RESPONDENT
THE MEC FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ROADS AND TRANSPORT
OF GAUTENG	2nd RESPONDENT
THE MEC FOR COMMUNITY SAFETY, GAUTENG	3rd RESPONDENT
CITY OF JOHANNESBURG	4™ RESPONDENT
JOHANNESBURG MINIBUS TAXI ASSOCIATION	5™ RESPONDENT
FORMER REGISTRAR OF TRANSPORT FOR GAUTENG PROVINCE,
PETER DLAMINI	6™ RESPONDENT
FORMER CHAIRPERSON OF THE GAUTENG PUBLIC PASSENGER
APPEAL BOARD	7th RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
KUBUSHI, J
[1]	The applicant is applying for leave to appeal to a full court of this Division, alternatively the Supreme Court of Appeal, against the whole of the judgment and order I handed down on 4 November 2015.
[2]	When the parties appeared before me to argue the application, there was no appearance or representation on behalf of the 5th respondent. On the day I was to deliver the judgment in respect of the application for leave to appeal, the 5th respondent's counsel made his appearance. Per agreement between the parties the 5th respondent was allowed to file heads of argument which I would consider before I deliver judgment. The 5th respondent’s counsel has since provided me with the heads of argument and I have considered the heads for purposes of this judgment.
[3]	In the notice of application the applicant raised comprehensive grounds of appeal. However, before me, the applicant's counsel argued only what he referred to as pertinent grounds.
[4]	The crux of the issue in this application for leave to appeal is, in my view, whether at the time the main application served before me it was opposed or not. I found in that regard as follows:
“My conclusion therefore is that the applicant’s opposing papers were filed and served out of time. The applicant should have applied for condonation. Having not done so it means the matter is unopposed and should be heard in the unopposed motion court.”
[5]	The applicant’s submission is that at the time of considering the matter the application was opposed because at that time the counter application was already launched. Once the counter application was filed the matter became opposed and should have been directed to the opposed court, so it was argued.
[6]	Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success (section 17 of the Superior Courts Act).
[7]	I am, thus, of the opinion that on the ground, as stated in paragraph [5] of this judgment, another court might come to a different conclusion as such the appeal has a reasonable prospect of success. Leave to appeal ought to be granted.
[8]	In the circumstances, I make the following order:
1.	The applicant is granted leave to appeal to the Full Court of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria, against the whole of the judgment and order granted on 4 November 2015.
2.	Costs are cost in the appeal.
E.M. KUBUSRI
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
APPEARANCES
HEARD ON THE	: 07 DECEMBER 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT	: 24 FEBRUARY 2016
APPLICANTS COUNSEL	; ADV J G RAUTENBACH, SC
APPLICANT’S ATTORNEY	: H.J GROENEWALD ATTORNEYS
1.2.3,	6 & 7* RESPONDENTS' COUNSEL	: MR D MTSHWENI
1.2.3,	6&701 RESPONDENTS* ATTORNEY	:STATE ATTORNEYS 4m RESPOND ENT’S COUNSEL : ADV M.C. MAKGATHO
4™ RESPONDENTS ATTORNEY	: PRINCE MUDAU ATTORNEYS
5™ RESPONDENT’S ATTORNEYS	: F.Z NZAMA ATTORNEYS
5™ RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL	: ADV M J MASHAVHA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
CASE NO: 72861/12
In the matter between:
JOHANNESBURG BARA QWAQWA TRANSPORT SERVICES
TAXI ASSOCIATION (PTY) LTD (“JBQQTA)	Applicant
AND
THE GAUTENG PROVINCIAL TRANSPORT REGULATORY
ENTITY	First respondent
THE MEC FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ROADS AND
TRANSPORT GAUTENG	Second respondent
THE MEC FOR COMMUNITY SAFETY GAUTENG
PROVINCE	Third respondent
THE CITY OF JOHANNESBURG	Fourth respondent
JOHANNESBURG MINIBUS TAXI ASSOCIATION	Fifth respondent
FORMER REGISTRAR OF TRANSPORT FOR
GAUTENG PROVINCE: PETER DLAMINI	Sixth respondent
FORMER CHAIRPERSON OF THE GAUTENG PUBLIC
PASSENGER APPEAL BOARD	Seventh respondent
FILING SHEET DOCUMENTS FILED: FIFTH RESPONDENT’S HEADS OF ARGUMENT
Signed at Johannesburg on this the day of February 2016.
ATTORNEYS Fifth Respondent’s Attorneys
c/o M.L. KEKANA Inc. 303 Helen Joseph Street Sammy Marks Square PRETORIA Tel: (011)331-2256 Fax: (Oil) 331-2257
Ref: Ms Nzama
^cki2 to y
TO: THE REGISTRAR OF GAUTENG HIGH COURT DIVISION (PRETORIA)
AND TO:
H.J GROENEWALD ATTORNEYS APPLICANT’S ATTORNEYS
656 Alouette Street Elardus Park PRETORIA
P.O.BOX 8334, PRETORIA 0001
Tel: (012) 345-3966
Fax: (012) 345-4591
Email: hettie@Potaroup.co.2a
Ref:
AND TO:
ATTORNEYS FOR THE 1*t, 2nd 6th AND 7™ RESPONDENTS STATE ATTORNEY
Salu Building
316 Thabo Sehume Street
Cnr Thabo Sehume and Francis Baard Streets
Private Bag X 91
PRETORIA 0001
Ref: 10313/2012/Z79
Tel: (012) 309 1630
Fax:(012) 309 1649/50 /086 1
Enq: PA MANAGA
AND TO:
CITY OF JOHANNESBURG, GAUTENG
ATTORNEY FOR THE FOURTH RESPONDENT
Prince Madau & Associates (PM Attorneys)
c/o Matshego Ramagaga Attorneys
2nd Floor, Nedbank Building
200 Pretorius Street
PRETORIA
Tel: (012) 079 6442
Fax: (086) 695 0882