IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND
Cisco
S. Mdlalose Applicant
vs
Chairman
of the Road Transportation Appeals Board 1st Respondent
Attorney
General 2nd Respondent
Case
No. CA/2113/1994
Coram
S W. Sapire ACJ
For
Applicant L. Mamba
For
Respondent
Judgment
(28/11/97)
This
is an application for review of a decision of the Transportation
Appeals Board. When the matter was first called there was an
appearances for both the Applicant and the Respondents.
Bolh
Respondents were represented by the Attorney General and I was told
that the Attorney General consented to an order. Now there is no way
in which this Court can be bound by any such consent. In the first
place on looking through the papers and the original matter appears
to have been opposed application for a licence. There are other
people interested in the issue of a licence and they opposed the
application both at the Road Transportation Board and at the Appeals
Board. To make an order without them having notice of this
application would be quite incorrect. Secondly no grounds have been
made out for any review and if the Transportation Appeals Board or
the Transportation Board is of the mind to grant or to reconsider the
application then a new application can be made forthwith. It is not
for this Court, without any information whatsoever and in the absence
of the interested parties having been given notice, to make any order
in regard to the proceedings at the Road Transportation authorities.
The
application is dismissed with costs.
S.W.
SAPIRE
ACTING
CHIEF
JUSTICE
