Afribusiness NPC v Minister of Finance (34523/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 1101 (27 June 2019)

Afribusiness NPC v Minister of Finance (34523/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 1101 (27 June 2019)

The court found that the judgments cited by the applicant do not address the issues at hand and are distinguishable, as they both dealt with the award of tenders rather than the validity of the Preferential Procurement Regulations 2017. Upon reconsideration of the arguments, the court was not persuaded that there is a reasonable possibility that another court would reach a different conclusion. There were no compelling reasons or conflicting judgments justifying leave to appeal, and the application did not raise new issues. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 1101
Parties
Applicant: Afribusiness NPC; Respondent: The Minister of Finance
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 June 2019
Case Number
34523/2017
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Francis
Legal Topics
Review of Administrative Action, Preferential Procurement Regulations, Leave to Appeal, Costs Orders
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Review of Administrative Action Preferential Procurement Regulations Leave to Appeal Costs Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Afribusiness NPC

Applicant

The Minister of Finance

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a reasonable prospect that another court may reach a different conclusion regarding the validity of the Preferential Procurement Regulations 2017.
  2. 2 Whether there are compelling reasons or conflicting judgments justifying leave to appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the application for leave to appeal raises new issues not previously considered.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the judgments cited by the applicant do not address the issues at hand and are distinguishable, as they both dealt with the award of tenders rather than the validity of the Preferential Procurement Regulations 2017. Upon reconsideration of the arguments, the court was not persuaded that there is a reasonable possibility that another court would reach a different conclusion. There were no compelling reasons or conflicting judgments justifying leave to appeal, and the application did not raise new issues. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.