South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

You are here:
SAFLII >>
Databases >>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >>
2016 >>
[2016] ZAGPPHC 62
| Noteup
| LawCite
Mogabudima Transport Services CC and Others v Gauteng Provincial Regulatory Entity and Others (23846/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 62 (28 January 2016)
Download original files |
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
28/01/2016
CASE NO: 23846/2014
NOT REPORTABLE
NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES
In the matter between:
MOGABUDIMA TRANSPORT SERVICES CC SE MOGOWE 1st Applicant
J MOGOWE 2nd Applicant
ME NCHABELENG 3rd Applicant
JM SEPHEU 4th Applicant
MP NCHABELENG 5th Applicant
GJ MTHOBENI 6th Applicant
MF NTSOANE 7th Applicant
SD RANALA 8th Applicant
OL MOTAU 9th Applicant
RS SELLO 10th Applicant
ME LEPELLE 11th Applicant
KT CHOMA 12th Applicant
MJ KGATUKE 13th Applicant
MB PHASHA 14th Applicant
And
THE GAUTENG PROVINCIAL REGULATORY ENTITY 1st Respondent
THE LIMPOPO PROVINCIAL REGULATORY ENTITY 2nd Respondent
THE REGISTRAR OF TRANSPORT,
GAUTENG PROVINCE 3rd Respondent
THE REGISTRAR OF TRANSPORT,
LIMPOPO PROVINCE 4th Respondent
BOSEKA BOEJA TAXI ASSOCIATION 5th Respondent
MASEMOLA TAXI ASSOCIATION 6th Respondent
MV SEPHEU 7th Respondent
SEFOKA MAKUWE ADAM 8th Respondent
NCHABELENG DITEDI MAXWELL 9th Respondent
TLADI FRANS 10th Respondent
MA MOKGWADI 11th Respondent
JUDGMENT
MALI AJ
[1] This is an application for an order to rescind, alternatively to declare void and unenforceable the verdict issued by the third and fourth respondents on 18 July 2012. The application further seeks the following:
1.1. an order directing the third respondent to reinstate the First applicants as members of the fifth respondent; and
1.2. an order directing the third respondent to reinstate the applicants as members of the fifth respondent and to renew their permits which they were entitled to as members of the fifth respondent.
[2] There was no appearance on behalf of all the applicants. I am satisfied that the notice of set down was served upon the applicants on 12 October 2015.
[3] Counsel, Mr Gwarha appeared on behalf of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents. Counsel, Mr Morare appeared on behalf of 5th and 11th respondent.
[4] There was no appearance on behalf of 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and the 10th respondent.
[5] Having heard Counsel the application is dismissed with costs.
5.1 Applicants are ordered to pay costs of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th 5th and 11th respondents on attorney and client scale.
______________________________
MALI AJ ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Counsel for the Applicants: Instructed by:
No appearance No appearance
Counsel for 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents: MR GWARHU
Counsel for 5 and 11 th Respondents: RAMUSHU MORARE INC.
Date of Hearing: 14 October 2015
Date of Judgment: 29 January 2016