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

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Broome J
• Judgment Date: 19 February 1982
• Citation: 1984 (1) SA 230 (N)
• Hearing Date: 19 February 1982
• Court: Natal 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...