The Gauteng government’s decision to terminate the taxi routes of the Witwatersrand African Taxi Association (Wata) has been successfully challenged in court.
Wata, a taxi formation that operates in Soweto, interdicted the Gauteng Provincial Regulatory Entity (GPRE) at the Johannesburg High Court.
The court also interdicted the GPRE for the January 16 decision it took to award the right to load passengers to the Nancefield Dube West Taxi Association (Nanduwe).
This judgment was handed down electronically on Monday by Judge Stuart Wilson.
On February 25, Wata, an association of just over 700 taxi owners, some of which operate along routes in Soweto, brought an application before the high court to seek an interim relief order restraining the implementation of the January 16 decision on the basis that it is prima facie unlawful.
Overseeing public transport
On January 16, the GPRE, established by the Gauteng roads and transport MEC, notified Wata of its decision to award the right to load passengers and to terminate its taxi journers on specified routes operated by Wata members to Nanduwe.
According to evidence presented during the court hearing, the GPRE is part of the department and consists of “dedicated officials”.
The GPRE’s statutory functions are to “monitor and oversee public transport” in Gauteng and to “receive and decide on applications relating to operating licences for intra-provincial transport where no municipality exists to which the operating licence function has been assigned”.
Wata was the applicant in the matter, and GPRE was the first respondent, along with Nanduwe as the second respondent and the Gauteng roads and transport MEC as the third respondent.
Rivalry endured for at least 10 years
In his judgment, Wilson said the GPRE’s January 16 decision appears to have been taken against the backdrop of intense competition over the routes to which it applies.
“That competition has on occasion been violent, and it has endured for at least 10 years … I issued an order on 14 March, 2024.
“My order restrains Nanduwe from harassing, intimidating, or otherwise interfering with Wata members’ operations along the contested routes pending the outcome of the arbitration [of route disputes between Wata and Nanduwe].
“Again, that order was neither appealed against nor rescinded and remains binding on all the parties to this application.
“The GPRE’s decision to revoke Wata members’ rights to load and to terminate their journeys on the defined routes appears to have been taken on the basis of a complaint initiated by Wata that Nanduwe had disobeyed my order and had continued to harass Wata members using the contested routes.
“Instead of addressing that issue, Wata complains, the GPRE purported to resolve the problem by effectively excluding taxis owned by Wata members from operating on the contested routes,” said Wilson.
Whatever its statutory powers, the GPRE is under a duty to act lawfully, said Wilson.
“On the face of it, the GPRE’s 16 January decision exceeded the parameters of the complaints referred to it and interfered with the terms of an order binding on the MEC to have the dispute between Wata and Nanduwe referred to arbitration.
“Without any sense of why GPRE acted as it did, the decision is prima facie unlawful,” said Wilson.
Respondents are interdicted
Wilson said there is no serious dispute that, prior to the enforcement of the January 16 decision, there were members of both Wata and Nanduwe operating on the contested routes with operating licences, which were, on their face, validly issued.
Said Wilson: “Since the enforcement of the decision, Wata members have been prevented from loading passengers and terminating their journeys on the routes, even if they are in possession of such a licence.
“For all these reasons, pending the final determination of an internal appeal or of a review of the first respondent’s decision of 16 January 2025 under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000, which must be launched within 10 days of receipt of the first respondent’s reasons for that decision, the first, second, and third respondents are interdicted and restrained from implementing the decision recorded in the first respondent’s letter of 16 January 2025.”
