Limpopo Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Others v Transport Education Training Authority (TETA) (2024/098008) [2024] ZAGPJHC 912 (10 September 2024)

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: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2024 >> [2024] ZAGPJHC 912 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Limpopo Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Others v Transport Education Training Authority (TETA) (2024/098008) [2024] ZAGPJHC 912 (10 September 2024) Limpopo Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Others v Transport Education Training Authority (TETA) (2024/098008) [2024] ZAGPJHC 912 (10 September 2024) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2024_912.html sino date 10 September 2024 ###### IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2024/098008 1. Reportable: 2. Of interest to other judges: 3. Revised: 10 September 2024 In the matter between: LIMPOPO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY (LCCI) 1 st Applicant ALBERT JELENI 2 nd Applicant ALL HOST EMPLOYER COMPANIES 3 rd Applicant and TRANSPORT EDUCATION TRAINING AUTHORITY (TETA) Respondent JUDGMENT WRIGHT J 1. The applicant relies on funding from the respondent Transport Education Training Authority for skills development. 2. The applicant seeks urgently an order for payment of money from the respondent. 3. The applicants says, somewhat vaguely, that its interns, those persons who benefit from the relevant skills development program will be prejudiced if the money is not paid over urgently. 4. The lengthy and detailed answering affidavit raises huge disputes of fact. Allegations of irregular financial conduct are made against the applicant. It is also shown that the applicant was aware from April 2024 of the present looming dispute. 5. In these circumstances, urgency is not shown. 6. When the matter was called, Mr SF Selamulela appeared for the applicant, saying that he had just been asked to attend court. The problem, he said, was that counsel for the applicant would arrive from Venda by Thursday. 7. This explanation is unacceptable. 8. After the matter had stood down for about two hours, Mr Selamulela asked for the matter to be removed. 9. Ms P Sokhela opposed, quite reasonably suggesting inconvenience and prejudice. 10. Be that as it may, the matter is not urgent and would need to be removed anyway. ORDER 1. Removed 2. The first and second applicants are jointly and severally to pay the costs of the respondent on the attorney and client scale. - GC Wright Judge of the High Court Gauteng Division, Johannesburg HEARD DELIVERED :10 September 2024 :10 September 2024 APPEARANCES: Applicant Instructed by Adv Selamulela Nevelamvi Attorneys Inc rofhela@gmail.com ; jagpage06@gmail.com 079 657 0238 / 072 222 0188 Respondent Instructed by Adv P Sokhela sokhela@group621.co.za 068 587 1653 Cheadle Thompson & Haysom Inc Brendan@cth.co.za ; Keagan@cth.co.za ; Bongumsa@cth.co.za 011 403 2765 sino noindex make_database footer start