The appellant was a universitas whose members were clearing and forwarding agents and motor vehicle importers. The members engaged in importing second-hand motor vehicles to Durban for the neighbouring countries' market (not for use in South Africa). Since October 2002, they used procedures under Regulation 84 of the National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996 to obtain three-day 'special permits' to drive vehicles to roadworthy testing centres, and then twenty-one day 'temporary permits' to drive them to foreign destinations on South African roads. In May 2005, the Director-General of the National Department of Transport issued a directive that this practice be discontinued, and the first respondent issued a circular instructing registering authorities to stop issuing such permits from 1 July 2005. The appellant sought a declaratory order that Regulation 84 authorised the issue of temporary and special permits for imported second-hand motor vehicles intended to be driven in transit on South African roads for export purposes.
The main appeal (against the order of Koen AJ) was dismissed with costs including costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel. The second appeal (against the security of costs order of Koen AJ) was dismissed with costs. The third appeal (against the order of Combrinck J) was dismissed with costs.
Regulation 84 of the National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996 is intended as an interim measure to permit unregistered and unlicensed motor vehicle users to operate their vehicles pending their registration and licensing in terms of the Act. The regulation cannot be used to facilitate the transport of vehicles from a South African port to a neighbouring country where those vehicles are not intended to be registered under the regulations. A temporary permit may only be issued under Regulation 84(1)(a)(ii) if the motor vehicle is 'to be registered and licensed in terms of this Chapter'. The recordal of permits in the register under Regulation 87 does not constitute registration of the vehicles concerned. Regulations are subordinate legislation and must be interpreted applying the same principles of statutory interpretation as apply to statutes, with reference to grammatical usage, contextual scene, the language of the parent statute, and its apparent scope and purpose.
The Court noted that the reference in Regulation 84(1)(a)(ii) to 'this chapter' is probably erroneous. The Court also observed that it was not necessary to consider other grounds upon which the appellants were said not to fall within the terms of the regulation, given that the vehicles were not intended to be registered under the regulations at all.
This case is significant in South African law for clarifying the scope and purpose of Regulation 84 of the National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996. It established that temporary and special permits under Regulation 84 are interim measures intended to permit unregistered and unlicensed motor vehicle users to operate their vehicles pending their registration and licensing in terms of the Act. The case confirms that these permits cannot be used to facilitate the transport of vehicles, using their own power, from a South African port to a neighbouring country when those vehicles are not intended for registration in South Africa. The judgment reinforces the principle that regulations must be interpreted in the context of their parent legislation and their underlying regulatory purpose. It also demonstrates the application of established statutory interpretation principles to subordinate legislation.