1887

oa Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa - The convenience of jurisdiction

 

Abstract

The case of South African Railways and Harbours v Chairman, Bophuthatswana Central Road Transportation Board and Another 1982 3 SA 24 (B) is an interesting example of one of the many intricate legal problems which can result from the policy of separate development. In this case the Board had granted certain motor carrier certificates to a company known as Rent-a-Bakkie Holdings (Pty) Ltd. The applicant applied to court in terms of Rule 53 to have a decision of the Board set aside on review. The difficulty facing the applicant was that Rent-a-Bakkie clearly had sufficient interest in the matter to be joined as respondents and the company was a peregrinus in Bophuthatswana. It appeared moreover that it had no attachable assets within the area of jurisdiction of the court and was unwilling to consent to the jurisdiction of the court. The ultimate question in this case is, was the company subject to the jurisdiction of the court?

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/cilsa/15/3/AJA00104051_846
1982-11-01
2016-12-09
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error