Johannesburg School of Flying Secures Interim Relief in Landing Fee Dispute at Rand Airport

The recent court decision involving Johannesburg School of Flying (JSF) and Rand Airport Holdings (RAM) has spotlighted the complex interplay between airport operations and tenant agreements. On February 28, 2025, the Gauteng Local Division of the High Court granted JSF an interim relief from increased landing fees imposed by RAM, pending a full trial.

JSF, which operates out of Rand Airport, faced a significant operational threat when RAM, the company overseeing the airport's runways, increased the landing fees by an unprecedented 105% in June 2024. JSF contested these hikes as exorbitant compared to similar facilities, arguing they breached the tacit understanding of reasonable fee adjustments agreed upon in a 2022 settlement.

Despite ongoing disputes over the fees deemed reasonable, JSF continued its operations by paying the old rates and depositing the disputed amount into a trust, as a show of good faith and legal compliance. The escalation reached a critical point when RAM threatened to ground JSF’s aircraft by March 1, 2025, unless the arrears were cleared.

Regarding urgency, the court recognized the immediate threat to JSF’s operations posed by RAM's ultimatum, dismissing any claims of procrastination by JSF in seeking legal recourse. The court’s decision underscores the necessity of judicial intervention to prevent potential business disruption due to contractual disagreements.

Legally, the court ordered JSF to continue paying the increased fees under protest, a common legal remedy that allows the disputed funds to be recoverable should JSF prevail in the forthcoming trial. This arrangement ensures that RAM can operate while the court deliberates on the legality of the fee increase.

This case not only reflects on the underlying responsibilities of contractual adherence and fair business practices but also emphasizes the role of the judiciary in maintaining operational stability in commercial disputes. As this legal battle unfolds, it will potentially set a significant precedent for how commercial fee increases are handled in the aviation sector and beyond, particularly when one party holds considerable control over essential infrastructure.

The resolution of this dispute will require careful judicial consideration of contract law principles, the fairness of business practices, and the operational realities of aviation training providers. Legal analysts and business operators alike will be watching closely, as the outcomes may influence future negotiations and contracts across various sectors.