CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

The Road Traffic Management Corporation and Another v Tasima (Pty) Limited and Others

CitationJA77/2017, JA78/2017, JA28/2018 and JA134/2017
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Labour LawAdministrative Law
Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in
Contract Law

Facts of the Case

On 03 December 2001, Tasima (Pty) Ltd (the first respondent) and the Government of the Republic of South Africa, acting through the Department of Transport, entered into a Turnkey agreement (which was subsequently amended and extended) for the provision of the eNaTIS system. This system was designed to realise the requirements provided for in the National Road Traffic Act 43 of 1996, namely to record, administer and maintain a vast range of road traffic-related information. The Road Traffic Management Corporation (RTMC) was the first appellant in consolidated appeals, with Makhosini Msibi as second appellant in JA134/2017. The employees listed in Annex "A" to the notice of motion were the fifth respondent. The matter involved disputes arising from this contractual arrangement and its implementation.

Legal Issues

  • The nature and scope of the contractual obligations arising from the Turnkey agreement for the eNaTIS system
  • The proper interpretation and application of the National Road Traffic Act 43 of 1996
  • Labour law issues relating to the employees listed in Annex A
  • Administrative law issues relating to the Department of Transport and its officials' conduct
  • The rights and obligations of the parties under the amended and extended Turnkey agreement

Judicial Outcome

The final order and outcome cannot be determined from the incomplete judgment excerpt provided. Only the first page containing the case title, parties, and introduction has been supplied.

Ratio Decidendi

The binding legal principles established by this case cannot be determined from the incomplete judgment excerpt provided. Only the introductory paragraphs have been supplied, without the substantive legal analysis, reasoning or conclusions of the court.

Obiter Dicta

No obiter dicta can be identified from the incomplete judgment excerpt provided, as only the first page containing case identification details and a brief introduction has been supplied.

Legal Significance

The significance of this case cannot be fully determined from the incomplete excerpt provided. However, it appears to involve important issues relating to government procurement contracts, the implementation of the national eNaTIS system under the National Road Traffic Act 43 of 1996, and potential labour law implications for employees affected by the contractual arrangements. The case involved multiple consolidated appeals in the Labour Appeal Court, suggesting complex and significant legal issues were at stake.

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.

Explore More Cases

More Labour Law cases

  • (1) Isador Husaiwevhu (2) Walter Mutowo (3) Fungai Zinyama v (1) UZ-UCSF Collaborative Research Programme (2) Sheriff of Zimbabwe N.O (3) High Court Registrar N.OJudgment No. SC 86/25, Civil Appeal No. SC 302/25
  • Aaron Mwenje v Intermarket Building SocietySC. 80/05 (Civil Appeal No. 358/04)
  • Aaron Zhomwe v BHP Minerals CompanyS.C. 3/2001 (Civil Appeal No. 25/2000)
  • Abdool Samad Cassim v Richards Bay MineralsD 81/2021
  • Abishai Bonda and Daniel Mahoza v JR Goddard Contracting (Pvt) LtdHB 199/22, HC 1411/20
  • ACCA Zimbabwe v Cuthbert MunhupedziHH 232-21, HC 3522/20
  • Adcorp Workforce Solutions (Pty) Ltd v CCMA and OthersCase no: D 1280/19
  • Adlecraft Investments (Private) Limited v Cassandra Myburgh and Colins BakerHH 538-21, HC 4465/21

More South Africa cases

  • 3M South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(272/09) [2010] ZASCA 20 (23 March 2010)
  • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
  • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
  • 4-Tune Investments (Pty) Ltd v Kingsgate Body CorporateCSOS 4565/WC/22 (Adjudication Order, 29 November 2023)
  • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
  • 9 on Rydal Vale Court Body Corporate v Pan African Holdings Pty LtdCSOS-4563/KZN/23 (Adjudication Order, 8 November 2023)
  • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another
2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
  • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97