Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Afriforum v South African Human Rights Commission and Others (14370-2019) [2024] ZAGPJHC 317 (27 March 2024)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that both the South African Human Rights Commission and Afriforum raised issues that warrant consideration by an appellate court. Leave to appeal was granted to the Commission against the order. Conditional leave to cross appeal was granted to Afriforum, subject to the appeal court determining that the SAHRC's decision of 8 March 2019 is reviewable. The court held that the costs of both the appeal and cross appeal should be costs in the appeal itself, ensuring fairness to all parties. The judgment was delivered promptly and communicated via the court's digital system and email to the parties' attorneys.

Court disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the South African Human Rights Commission; conditional leave to cross appeal granted to Afriforum; costs of appeal and cross appeal to be costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted to the South African Human Rights Commission against the order.
  • Conditional leave to cross appeal is granted to Afriforum, subject to the appeal court finding the SAHRC decision of 8 March 2019 reviewable.
  • Afriforum may seek on appeal the relief contained in its notice of motion, including review and setting aside or correction of the SAHRC decision, or remittal to the High Court for further hearing.
  • Costs of the appeal and cross appeal shall be costs in the appeal itself.

02

Material facts

Parties

Afriforum

Applicant Counsel: C Woodrow SC

South African Human Rights Commission

Respondent Counsel: K Pillay

Chairperson: Bongani

Respondent

Commissioner Priscilla Jana N.O

Respondent

Julius Malema

Respondent

Economic Freedom Fighters

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Conditional Cross Leave to Appeal

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Afriforum argued that the decision of the South African Human Rights Commission dated 8 March 2019 is reviewable and that, should the appeal court find it to be so, Afriforum should be granted leave to cross appeal to seek the setting aside or correction of that decision, or alternatively, remittal of the matter for further hearing.
Respondent
The South African Human Rights Commission sought leave to appeal against the High Court order, contending that its decision was not reviewable and that the relief sought by Afriforum should not be granted. The Commission opposed the conditional cross appeal and maintained that the High Court's findings should stand.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013

    Leave to appeal should be granted where there is a reasonable prospect that another court may come to a different conclusion.

  2. 02

    Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000

    A decision by an administrative body may be reviewable if it constitutes administrative action as defined in law.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that both the South African Human Rights Commission and Afriforum raised issues that warrant consideration by an appellate court. Leave to appeal was granted to the Commission against the order. Conditional leave to cross appeal was granted to Afriforum, subject to the appeal court determining that the SAHRC's decision of 8 March 2019 is reviewable. The court held that the costs of both the appeal and cross appeal should be costs in the appeal itself, ensuring fairness to all parties. The judgment was delivered promptly and communicated via the court's digital system and email to the parties' attorneys.

Obiter and limits

  • The judgment was delivered by uploading to the caselines digital database and by email, reflecting the court's commitment to efficient communication.
  • The conditional nature of the cross appeal ensures that unnecessary litigation is avoided if the appellate court finds the SAHRC decision not reviewable.

Court disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the South African Human Rights Commission; conditional leave to cross appeal granted to Afriforum; costs of appeal and cross appeal to be costs in the appeal.

  • Leave to appeal is granted to the South African Human Rights Commission against the order.
  • Conditional leave to cross appeal is granted to Afriforum, subject to the appeal court finding the SAHRC decision of 8 March 2019 reviewable.
  • Afriforum may seek on appeal the relief contained in its notice of motion, including review and setting aside or correction of the SAHRC decision, or remittal to the High Court for further hearing.
  • Costs of the appeal and cross appeal shall be costs in the appeal itself.

Source and reliance status

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

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.

Source document

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Judgment

[2024] ZAGPJHC 317

REPUBLIC

OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN

THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

Case no: 14370/2019

31328/2019

1. REPORTABLE: no

2. OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: no

In the matter between:

AFRIFORUM

First Applicant

and

THE SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION First Respondent

THE CHAIRPERSON: BONGANI

Second Respondent

CHRISTOPHER MAJOLA N.O

COMMISSIONER PRISCILLA JANA N.O

Third Respondent

JULIUS

MALEMA

Fourth Respondent

ECONOMIC

FREEDOM FIGHTERS

Fifth Respondent

And,

FREDERIK WILLEM DE KLERK N.O

First Applicant

DAVID WHITEFOORDT STEWARD N.O

Second Applicant

HERMAN BAILEY N.O

Third Applicant

BEN COETZEE BESTER N.O

Fourth Applicant

WARREN ALEXANDER MORTEN CLEWLOW N.O Fifth Applicant

ELIZABETH DE KLERK N.O

Sixth Applicant

THEUNIS ELOFF N.O

Seventh Applicant

DEENADA YALEN KONAR N.O

Eighth Applicant

FORTUNATE MASHEBU MATHEBULA N.O

Ninth Applicant

And

THE

SOUTH AFRICAN RIGHTS COMMISSION First Respondent

THE CHAIRPERSON: BONGANI

Second Respondent

COMMISSIONER PRISCILLA JANA N.O

Third Respondent

JULIUS

MALEMA

Fourth Respondent

ECONOMIC

FREEDOM FIGHTERS

Fifth Respondent

This judgment for application for leave to appeal has been delivered by uploading it to the caselines digital database of the Gauteng

Division of the High Court of South Africa, Johannesburg, and by email to the attorneys of record of the parties on 27 March 2024.

JUDGMENT

ON LEAVE TO APPEAL

Sutherland DJP:

[1] In this matter, which is an application for leave to appeal, and then an application on a conditional basis for a cross leave to appeal.

[2] After hearing counsel I am satisfied that its appropriate that leave to appeal be granted and that the application for leave to cross appeal similarly be granted.

[3] Therefore, I make the following order:

(1) Leave to appeal is granted to the South African Human Rights Commission against the order.

(2) Leave to appeal is granted to the first applicant (Afriforum) in terms set out below:

2.1 That, conditional on the appeal court finding that the finding/decision of the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) of 8 March 2019 constitutes a decision of the type that is reviewable, Afriforum be granted leave to cross appeal against the order contained in paragraph 2 of the High Court order in order to seek an order on appeal:

2.1.1 Granting the relief contained in the notice of motion of Afriforum, specifically that the decision of the SAHRC of 8 March 2019 be reviewed and set aside; alternatively be reviewed and corrected; alternatively

2.1.2 Remitting the case to the High Court for the further hearing of the matter on such terms as the appeal court may determine.

(3) The costs of the appeal and the cross appeal shall be costs in the appeal itself.

Roland Sutherland

Deputy Judge President, Gauteng Division, Johannesburg.

Heard: 27 March 2024

Judgment: 27 March 2024

Appearances:

For Afriforum:

Adv C Woodrow SC

Instructed by Hurter Spies Incorporated

For South African Human Rights Commission:

Adv K Pillay,

With her, Adv K Hardy

Instructed by South African Human Rights Commission

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.