Tempelhof Filling Station (Pty) Ltd v Controller of Petroleum Products and Others (A160/2025; 017060-2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1315 (9 December 2025)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPPHC 1315 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Tempelhof Filling Station (Pty) Ltd v Controller of Petroleum Products and Others (A160/2025; 017060-2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1315 (9 December 2025) Tempelhof Filling Station (Pty) Ltd v Controller of Petroleum Products and Others (A160/2025; 017060-2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1315 (9 December 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_1315.html sino date 9 December 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA Appeal: A160/2025 Court a quo: 017060-2024 (1)                REPORTABLE: NO (2)                OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES: NO (3)                REVISED: NO DATE 9 December 2025 SIGNATURE In the matter between: TEMPELHOF FILLING STATION (PTY) LTD Appellant Trading as Shell Ultra City, Limpopo, Musina and THE CONTROLLER OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS 1 st Respondent SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL ROADS AGENCY SOC LTD 2 nd Respondent MUSINA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY 3 rd Respondent EAGLE GREEK INVESTMENTS 154 (PTY) LTD 4 th Respondent MMJ LOUW ACCOUNTING ASSOCIATES 1070 CC 5 th Respondent SHELL DOWNSTREAM SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD 6 th Respondent JUDGMENT MINNAAR AJ (Swanepoel J and Mooki J concurring) [1] The appeal is before us with the Supreme Court of Appeal's special leave. The appeal is against an order (‘the order’) granted by Nyathi J on 11 October 2024 (‘the court a quo ’). Only the fourth and fifth respondents (‘the respondents’) are opposing the appeal. [2] The appellant launched an application in March 2024. The application consisted of Part A and Part B. In Part A, the appellant sought an urgent interim interdict pending the finalisation of Part B. In Part B, the appellant, in terms of the provisions of Rule 53, sought an order to review and set aside the site and retail license rights granted by the first respondent to the respondents for the site situated at Portions 6 and/or 7 of the Farm Uitenpas 2, N1, Musina. [3] The central issue in this appeal is whether the Gauteng Division of the High Court (‘Gauteng Division’) had jurisdiction to adjudicate Part A of the application. [4] On 13 March 2024, Collis J granted the interim relief sought in Part A and issued a rule nisi returnable on 22 May 2024. The application became opposed, and the rule nisi was extended. Part A was eventually argued before the court a quo . [5] In their opposition to Part A, the respondents raised a point in limine that the Gauteng Division lacked the required jurisdiction as: a. Part A is solely directed and aimed against the respondents from ceasing any construction of a fuel filling station and the operation thereof. It is not aimed at or affects any rights of any other respondents in the application. b. The appellant’s sole reliance on vesting jurisdiction is premised on the first respondent’s offices situated in Pretoria. This, whilst the first respondent also has regional offices located in different provinces and more specifically, a regional office in Polokwane. c. The jurisdiction vested in the first respondent’s Pretoria office only finds application to Part B of the application. d. The respondents’ registered addresses are situated in Musina, Limpopo. The respondents do not conduct any business within the court a quo ’s jurisdiction. As such, the respondents’ registered and business addresses fall within the sole and exclusive area of jurisdiction of the Polokwane High Court (‘Limpopo Division’). e. As Part A only relates to the respondents, the court a quo had no jurisdiction over the respondents. [6] The court a quo upheld the point in limine by finding that the Gauteng Division lacked jurisdiction. As to the order, the rule nisi issued on 13 March 2024 was discharged, and Part A of the application was dismissed. Jurisdiction: [7] In its judgment, with reference to the provisions of Section 21(1) of the Superior Court’s Act, 10 of 2013 [1] (‘the Act’), the court a quo found that the application ought to have been initiated in the Limpopo Division, as that court was empowered and authorised to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. The basis for this finding was the respondents’ residence, business activities, and registered addresses, all of which are situated in Limpopo. Further justification was that the cause of action, namely the authorisation and issuing of the permits at issue, occurred in Polokwane, Limpopo. The court a quo also concluded that since the subject property is situated in Limpopo, the Limpopo Division had sole jurisdiction to entertain the interdict. [8] The court a quo failed to take into account the provisions of section 21(2) of the Act, which provides: “ (2) A Division also has jurisdiction over any person residing or being outside its area of jurisdiction who is joined as a party to any cause in relation to which such court has jurisdiction or who in terms of a third party notice becomes a party to such a cause, if the said person resides or is within the area of jurisdiction of any other Division.” [9] The court a quo failed to consider that the first, second and sixth respondents are all domiciled within the Gauteng Division. In terms of section 21(2), where a court has jurisdiction over one of the respondents, it would have jurisdiction over all other respondents joined to the proceedings. [10] The appeal must succeed as the Gauteng Division had jurisdiction to consider the relief sought in Part A of the application. Mootness: [11] The respondents raised the point that the appeal might be moot, as Part B had already been adjudicated. Part B of the application was argued on 25 August 2025 and was subsequently dismissed on 8 October 2025. The appellant applied for leave to appeal against the dismissal of Part B. The appeal process is still pending. [12] Usually, a court will not adjudicate a matter that will have no practical effect and/or result. [2] The court, however, has discretion in this regard. [3] [13] In light of the pending appeal to Part B, it would be in the interest of justice that the merits of this appeal be adjudicated. Costs: [14] There is no basis to depart from the regular order that costs should follow the outcome. There exists no grounds to justify any punitive costs order. The issues in the appeal are not complex and, as such, costs on Scale B are appropriate. Consequently, I propose the following order: 1. The appeal is upheld with costs on scale B. 2. The order granted by the court a quo is set aside and replaced with the following order: ‘ This point in limine to the effect that the Gauteng Division lacks jurisdiction to hear Part A of the application is dismissed with costs.’ 3. Part A is remitted to the court a quo to be placed on the opposed motion roll. Minnaar AJ Acting Judge of the High Court Gauteng Division, Pretoria I agree: Swanepoel J Judge of the High Court Gauteng Division, Pretoria I agree: Mooki J Judge of the High Court Gauteng Division, Pretoria Heard on                                    : 9 October 2025 For the Appellant                         :  Adv. B G Savvas Instructed by                               : Murray Kotzè & Associates Attorneys For the 4 th and 5 th Respondents   : Adv. R de Leeuw Instructed by                               : Schabort Potgieter Attorneys Date of Judgment                        : _______________ [1] (1) A Division has jurisdiction over all persons residing or being in, and in relation to all causes arising and all offences triable within, its area of jurisdiction and all other matters of which it may according to law take cognisance, and has the power- (a)        to hear and determine appeals from all Magistrates' Courts within its area of jurisdiction; (b)        to review the proceedings of all such courts; (c)        in its discretion, and at the instance of any interested person, to enquire into and determine any existing, future or contingent right or obligation, notwithstanding that such person cannot claim any relief consequential upon the determination. [2] City Capital SA Property Holdings Ltd v Chavonnes Badenhorst St Clair Cooper and Others 2018 (4) SA 71 (SCA) [3] Centre for Child Law v Hoërskool Fochville 2016 (2) SA 121 (SCA) at para 11 sino noindex make_database footer start