{"issue_text":"Whether Minister had locus standi and cause of action against appellant","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"MSD transferred to Minister in 2014, CAAZ was collection agent"}
{"issue_text":"Whether claims prior to 22 August 2008 had prescribed","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Summons served 22 August 2014, claims from January 2006"}
{"issue_text":"Whether meteorological fees constituted duplication of CAAZ charges","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"CAAZ charged landing and overflight fees, also collected meteorological fees"}
{"issue_text":"Whether costs on higher scale were appropriate","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Court a quo awarded costs on legal practitioner and client scale"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
South African Airways refused to pay meteorological weather services fees charged by Zimbabwean authorities through Civil Aviation Authority of Zimbabwe, leading to litigation over prescription, locus standi and whether fees constituted a tax.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases