Marinpine Transport (Pty) Ltd v Local Road Transportation Board, Pietermaritzburg, and Others

JurisdictionSouth Africa
JudgeBroome J
Judgment Date19 February 1982
Citation1984 (1) SA 230 (N)
Hearing Date19 February 1982
CourtNatal Provincial Division

Broome J:

The applicant is a bus operator. For many years it has operated a service from the Umalaas River to Pinetown. The second respondent is also a bus operator. For some time it has operated a service from Bredasfontein to Umlaas River. That G service, although its terminal point was stated as being the Umlaas River, in fact used to end a distance of about 11/2 km from the river.

On 30 October last year the first respondent granted four public permits to the second respondent authorising it to operate a service from Bredasfontein to Pinetown, that is to H say, a service over both the routes I have already referred to, connected by the roadway between the point to the west of, but near, the Umlaas River where the second respondent's service used to terminate and a point on the east side of the river where the applicant's service commenced. The application, which as I say was granted on 30 October 1981, was opposed by the applicant.

Thereafter the applicant noted an appeal to the Commission - that

Broome J

appeal was noted on 12 November 1981 - and at the same time applied under s 8(3) (b) of the Road Transportation Act 74 of 1977 for the chairman of the Commission. in his discretion, to suspend the operation of the permits granted by the Board A and now appealed against.

On 4 January 1982 the applicant's attorneys received the document, annexure "C" to the originating affidavit, signed on behalf of the chairman and stating that it had been decided to stay the effect of the Local Board's decision pending B consideration of the appeal. I pause here to observe that, in my judgment, the grant of this stay was a proper and just exercise by the chairman of his discretion. In matters of this sort, unless extraordinary circumstances prevail, it is always desirable that the status quo be maintained until such time as a final decision is made. Seldom is execution before appeal permitted. Disputes over transportation certificates are seldom C any different from any other form of dispute ventilated in court and it is a time-honoured principle that, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, the court, as the chairman did here, will always maintain the status quo until the last word has been spoken by the final court of appeal. The potential difficulties and the objections to any other course are so D obvious that it is unnecessary to say anything further. Apparently the second respondent learnt of the chairman's decision under s 8 (3) (b) before the applicant's attorneys did. This was shortly before Christmas. The second respondent then applied to the Local Road Transportation Board under s 20 for the grant of a temporary permit. Such a permit was granted. In terms of s 20 (4) its period of operation could not exceed E 14 days. Then from time to time the permit was renewed.

On 3 February 1982 an appeal was due to be heard by the Commisssion against the grant by the first respondent to the second respondent of the four public permits in question (ie those granted on 30 October 1981). That appeal was not heard F that day - it was postponed. It is not clear when it is likely to be heard. There has been some mention of it being dealt with in May.

It is against this background that I have before me today an application by the applicant for a rule affording interim relief, calling on the first and second respondents to show cause why the second respondent should not be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • Polaris Capital (Pty) Ltd v Registrar of Companies and Another
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...(2) SA 276 (E): compared and applied Marinpine Transport (Pty) Ltd v Local Road Transportation Board, Pietermaritzburg, and Others 1984 (1) SA 230 (N): Peregrine Group (Pty) Ltd and Others v Peregrine Holdings Ltd and Others 2000 (1) SA 187 (W): applied H Peregrine Group (Pty) Ltd and Other......
  • Case Comments: Of Liability for Patent Infringement, Public Interest, and Effective Patent Terms: Cipla Medpro v Aventis Pharma; Aventis Pharma SA v Cipla Life Sciences
    • South Africa
    • Juta South Africa Mercantile Law Journal No. , May 2019
    • 25 May 2019
    ...(Pty) Ltd v Local Road Transportation Board, Pietermaritzburg,(2012) 24 SA Merc LJ460© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd and Others 1984 (1) SA 230 (N) at 234D–F; Corium (Pty) Ltd and Others vMyburgh Park Langebaan (Pty) Ltd and Others 1993 (1) SA 853 (C) at858E–G; Verstappen v Port Edward Town Bo......
  • Polaris Capital (Pty) Ltd v Registrar of Companies and Another
    • South Africa
    • Cape Provincial Division
    • 25 July 2008
    ...Brusser AJ respondent's order, in Marinpine Transport (Pty) Ltd v Local Road A Transportation Board, Pietermaritzburg, and Others 1984 (1) SA 230 (N) at 232B - D Broome J In matters of this sort, unless extraordinary circumstances prevail, it is always desirable that the status quo be maint......
  • Cipla Medpro (Pty) Ltd v Aventis Pharma SA and Related Appeal
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...SA 245 (A): dicta at 249F – 250E applied Marinpine Transport (Pty) Ltd v Local Road Transportation Board, Pietermaritzburg, and Others 1984 (1) SA 230 (N): dictum at 234D – F applied H McKenzie v Van der Merwe 1917 AD 41: Minister of Health and Another NO v New Clicks South Africa (Pty) Ltd......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Polaris Capital (Pty) Ltd v Registrar of Companies and Another
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...(2) SA 276 (E): compared and applied Marinpine Transport (Pty) Ltd v Local Road Transportation Board, Pietermaritzburg, and Others 1984 (1) SA 230 (N): Peregrine Group (Pty) Ltd and Others v Peregrine Holdings Ltd and Others 2000 (1) SA 187 (W): applied H Peregrine Group (Pty) Ltd and Other......
  • Polaris Capital (Pty) Ltd v Registrar of Companies and Another
    • South Africa
    • Cape Provincial Division
    • 25 July 2008
    ...Brusser AJ respondent's order, in Marinpine Transport (Pty) Ltd v Local Road A Transportation Board, Pietermaritzburg, and Others 1984 (1) SA 230 (N) at 232B - D Broome J In matters of this sort, unless extraordinary circumstances prevail, it is always desirable that the status quo be maint......
  • Cipla Medpro (Pty) Ltd v Aventis Pharma SA and Related Appeal
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...SA 245 (A): dicta at 249F – 250E applied Marinpine Transport (Pty) Ltd v Local Road Transportation Board, Pietermaritzburg, and Others 1984 (1) SA 230 (N): dictum at 234D – F applied H McKenzie v Van der Merwe 1917 AD 41: Minister of Health and Another NO v New Clicks South Africa (Pty) Ltd......
  • Morrison v City of Johannesburg
    • South Africa
    • North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
    • 25 December 2013
    ...appears nevertheless to be a strong one. (See Marinepine Transport (Pty) Ltd vs Local Road Transportation Board, Pietermaritzburg 1984 (1) SA 230 (N) 232 B - D; and Max v Independent Democrats 2006 (3) SA 112 (c) at 118E - 29. Section 139 of the Ordinance does not expressly provide for the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT