Ackerman v Amaning and Another (EQ3/2023) [2024] ZAEQC 3 (6 June 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] ZAEQC 3
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Equality Court
- Panel
- GC Wright
- Case number
- EQ3/2023
More details
- Court
- Equality Court
- Panel
- GC Wright
- Case number
- EQ3/2023
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that, notwithstanding the wording of section 23(1) of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, leave to appeal is required, as established by Supreme Court of Appeal precedent. The applicant demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal and the case raises important questions regarding the merits and the appropriate remedy. Accordingly, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Orders
- Mr Ackerman is granted leave to appeal the orders of Wright J of 10 May 2024.
- Leave is to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
- Costs in the appeal.
02
Material facts
Parties
Willem Ackerman
Applicant Counsel: Adv N RileyEmmanuel Amaning
Respondent Counsel: Adv B WinksGarth Wellman
Respondent Counsel: Adv B Winks03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Main Complaints
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether Mr Ackerman requires leave to appeal under the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act.
- 02
Whether there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
- 03
Whether the case raises important questions on the merits and remedy justifying leave to appeal.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contends that section 23(1) of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act allows an aggrieved party to appeal as of right, and that his case merits consideration by the Supreme Court of Appeal due to its importance and prospects of success.
- Respondent
- The respondents argue that leave to appeal is required despite the wording of section 23(1), relying on precedent from the Supreme Court of Appeal. They submit that the applicant has not demonstrated reasonable prospects of success or compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism v George and Others [2006] ZASCA 57; 2007 (3) SA 62 (SCA)
Despite the permissive wording of section 23(1) of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, leave to appeal is required.
- 02
Section 17(1)(a)(i)-(ii) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
Leave to appeal should be granted if there is a reasonable prospect of success or if the matter raises compelling questions of law or remedy.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that, notwithstanding the wording of section 23(1) of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, leave to appeal is required, as established by Supreme Court of Appeal precedent. The applicant demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal and the case raises important questions regarding the merits and the appropriate remedy. Accordingly, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that the permissive language in section 23(1) has been authoritatively interpreted to require leave to appeal.
- The matter is of sufficient importance to warrant consideration by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
- Mr Ackerman is granted leave to appeal the orders of Wright J of 10 May 2024.
- Leave is to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
- Costs in the appeal.
Source and reliance status
Equality Court
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Equality Court
Order
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
SITTING AS AN EQUALITY COURT
1. REPORTABLE: No
2. OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: No
3.
EVISED
6 June 2024
Case NO: EQ3-2023
In the matter between:
WILLEM
ACKERMAN
Applicant
and
EMMANUEL
AMANING
First Respondent
GARTH
WELLMAN
Second Respondent
JUDGMENT – APPLICATION for LEAVE to APPEAL
WRIGHT J
[1] On 10 May 2024 I handed down judgment on the main complaints. I found against Mr Ackerman. Mr Akerman now seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
[2] Section 23(1) of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 4 of 2000 reads “ Any person aggrieved by any order made by an equality court in terms of or under this Act MAY, within such period and in such manner as may be prescribed, appeal against such order to the High Court having jurisdiction or the Supreme Court of Appeal, as the case may be.” ( My emphasis).
[3] It would appear however, that despite the use of the word “ may ” by the Legislature, Mr Ackerman requires leave. See Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism v George and Others [2006] ZASCA 57; 2007 (3) SA 62 (SCA) at paragraphs 15 and 16. See too Afriforum NPC v Nelson Mandela Foundation Trust and Others [2023] ZASCA 58; 2023 (4) SA 1 (SCA); [2023] 3 All SA 1 (SCA) at paragraph 4.
[4] With the provisions of section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 in mind, Mr Ackerman has a reasonable prospect on appeal. In addition, under section 17(1)(a)(ii), this case raises important questions on its merits and on the question of remedy which give compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
ORDER
[1] Mr Ackerman is granted leave to appeal the orders of Wright J of 10 May 2024.
[2] Leave is to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
[3] Costs in the appeal.
GC Wright
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Johannesburg sitting as an Equality Court.
HEARD:
6 June 2024
DELIVERED: 6 June 2024
APPEARANCES :
Applicant
Adv N Riley
Instructed by Darryl Furman & Associates
011 447 7747
info@furmanlaw.com.za
Respondents Adv B Winks
Instructed By Rupert Candy Attorneys Inc
rupert@rupertcandy.co.za
010 600 8821
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.