In its opposition to the application, the first respondent submitted that it had the right to assign the above licence to the second respondent because the applicant had terminated the agreement for which it had obtained the site licence. The alleged termination of that contract was made by an SMS sent by the applicant to herself, which provides that a person who rents or sublets a taxi licence (or who enters into an agreement for the grant of a taxi licence) must terminate in writing the rental agreement, sublease or agreement to the person facilitating the provision of the taxi service for the taxi licence. within 7 days of the entry into force of the rental agreement, sublease or agreement.  On July 18, 27, 2012, the Claimant learned that the first opponent had sold the taxi operating licence in question to the second respondent and that, as a result, the fourth respondent would no longer allow him to operate the taxi sector. He inquired with first and second responders as well as third and fourth respondents. He learned that the third respondent was in the process of transferring the above-mentioned site licence on behalf of the second respondent. The applicant then submitted that application mainly in order to put an end to the procedure for the transfer of the abovementioned operating licence and its return.  The above-mentioned agreement lasted until April 30, 1, 2012, when the parties agreed that the applicant had obtained the taxi operating permit in question from the opponent of the first application for an amount of R30,000.00, duly paid and the receipt of which was confirmed by the first person in a document signed at the SA police station in Heidedal. From that date, the applicant interrupted payments in paragraph 700.00 to the opponent of the original application, since he was the owner of the operating licence at the time.  On behalf of the first opponent, it was argued that the opponent of the first application acted within the scope of its right to seek another buyer from its receipt following the alleged cancellation of the agreement and that it had finally entered into a contract with the second respondent.