Greater Bloemfontein Taxi Association and Another v Retshedisitsoe Issac Mafisa

The respondent purchased an operating permit from Ms Nontsokolo Mei which allowed him to load passengers at Majakathata Taxi Rank. The transfer was facilitated through court orders compelling both Ms Mei and the first appellant to sign the necessary documents. On 19 October 2022, the Free State Licensing Board issued the permit (number LFSLB44201-5) to the respondent. On 20 October 2022, when the respondent attempted to load passengers, the second appellant (Chairperson of the rank) prevented him from doing so. The first appellant (Greater Bloemfontein Taxi Association) failed to intervene. The respondent then brought an urgent ex parte application for an interdict. A rule nisi was issued and later opposed by the appellants. Following the urgent application, on 26 October 2022, a meeting was held where it was minuted that the respondent would temporarily load under Ms Mei's permit pending resolution of disputes. The respondent disputed agreeing to this arrangement but no objection was noted at the meeting.

• Whether the court a quo erred in finding that the respondent had proven a clear right to the relief sought despite challenges to the legality of the permit
• Whether the permit was transferred in contravention of section 77 of the Land Transport Act 5 of 2009 and was thus unlawful
• Whether the court should have given effect to an agreement allegedly concluded between the parties at a meeting on 26 October 2022 pending final determination of the matter
• Whether the respondent was bound by the rules of the Majakathata Association regarding loading order and procedures
• The proper interpretation of sections 77 and 58 of the Land Transport Act regarding transfer of operating licenses and permits

The appeal was upheld in part. The High Court order was set aside and replaced with an order that: (1) interdicted the appellants from preventing the respondent's vehicle from loading at the taxi rank in line with permit LFSLB44201-5; (2) interdicted the appellants from instructing or causing any driver of the respondent to vacate the rank; (3) made orders 1 and 2 subject to the respondent temporarily loading under Ms Mei's permit pending a decision by the GBTA and/or a court on the legality of the permit; (4) required the respondent to only load passengers in accordance with the rules of the Majakathata Association; (5) required any action, review or application by the appellants to be instituted within 60 days, failing which the order in prayer 3 would lapse; and (6) ordered each party to pay their own costs.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) An operating permit issued by the relevant licensing authority that has not been set aside is valid and confers rights on the holder, applying the Oudekraal principle; (2) Sections 77 and 58 of the Land Transport Act 5 of 2009 must be read together - while section 77 prohibits cession or alienation of operating licenses except through transfer under section 58, such transfers are lawful when conducted in accordance with section 58; (3) Where there are disputes of fact in motion proceedings that cannot be resolved on the papers, the court must apply the Plascon Evans rule and accept the version of the respondent (in motion proceedings, the party opposing the relief) unless it is far-fetched or untenable; (4) The holder of a valid operating permit has a right to operate in accordance with that permit, but may be subject to reasonable rules of a voluntary association of which they are a member, provided such rules do not negate the statutory rights conferred by the permit; (5) Where parties have concluded an interim agreement pending final determination of disputes, courts should give effect to such agreements in framing interim relief.

The Court observed that there was no reason for a costs order to be granted on the attorney and client scale in this matter. The Court also noted that the first appellant (the Greater Bloemfontein Taxi Association) had failed to intervene in the impasse between its members, which led to the litigation. The Court commented that the respondent had conceded that he had no intention of violating any rules and regulations of the association and was prepared to abide by them, accepting that he could only load in a particular place in the queue and could not jump the queue. The Court remarked that the disputes about whether the respondent was obliged to load under the auspices of Ms Mei and whether he had breached association rules were not disputes that could be decided on the papers before it. The judgment implicitly suggests that associations and their members should resolve internal disputes through their own structures (like the GBTA) or through proper review proceedings rather than through self-help measures such as physically preventing members from loading.

This case provides guidance on the interaction between statutory transport licensing regimes under the Land Transport Act 5 of 2009 and the internal rules of voluntary taxi associations. It illustrates the application of the Oudekraal principle that administrative decisions (such as the issuing of operating permits) remain valid until set aside, even if their legality is challenged. The case also demonstrates the court's approach to balancing individual statutory rights conferred by operating permits with the collective rights of associations to regulate their members' conduct. It confirms that sections 77 and 58 of the Land Transport Act must be read together, and that operating licenses may be transferred (though not ceded or alienated in the wider sense) in terms of section 58. The judgment reinforces the Plascon Evans rule in motion proceedings involving disputes of fact and shows judicial willingness to give effect to interim agreements pending final resolution of disputes in the taxi industry.