Association of Meat Importers and Exporters v International Trade Administration Commission and Others (9233/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 72 (31 January 2024)
The court found that both the Applicant and Respondents presented persuasive grounds for appeal and cross-appeal, particularly considering the importance of the subject matter to the parties, the Poultry Industry, and international trade relations. Upon reconsideration of the judgment and order, the court concluded...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPPHC 72
- Parties
- Applicant: Association of Meat Importers and Exporters; Respondent: International Trade Administration Commission; Respondent: Minister of Trade, Industry & Competition; Respondent: Minister of Finance; Respondent: South African Revenue Services; Respondent: South African Poultry Association
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 9233/2022
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Cross Appeal Following Main Judgment
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal and cross-appeal granted to the Applicant and the First, Second, and Fifth Respondents directly to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
- Judges
- Retief
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Superior Courts Act, Trade Regulation, International Trade Relations
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Association of Meat Importers and Exporters
Applicant
International Trade Administration Commission
Respondent
Minister of Trade, Industry & Competition
Respondent
Minister of Finance
Respondent
South African Revenue Services
Respondent
South African Poultry Association
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Cross Appeal Following Main Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the Applicant and Respondents against the main judgment and order.
- 2 Whether the grounds of appeal and cross-appeal meet the threshold set by section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that both the Applicant and Respondents presented persuasive grounds for appeal and cross-appeal, particularly considering the importance of the subject matter to the parties, the Poultry Industry, and international trade relations. Upon reconsideration of the judgment and order, the court concluded that the threshold set by section 17(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 was met. Accordingly, leave to appeal and cross-appeal was granted to all parties directly to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal and cross-appeal granted to the Applicant and the First, Second, and Fifth Respondents directly to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Orders
- The Applicant, the First, Second and Fifth Respondents are granted leave to appeal and/or cross appeal, as the case may be, directly to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
- Costs to be costs in the Appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
Case No: 9233/2022
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED
DATE: 31 JANUARY 2024
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
THE ASSOCIATION OF MEAT IMPORTERS AND
Applicant
EXPORTERS
and
INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION
First Respondent
COMMISSION
MINISTER OF TRADE, INDUSTRY &
Second Respondent
COMPETITION
MINISTER OF FINANCE Third Respondent
SOUTH AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICES
Fourth Respondent
SOUTH AFRICAN POULTRY ASSOCIATION
Fifth Respondent
JUDGMENT
RETIEF J
1. The parties before me, at the hearing of the main application, namely the Applicant, the First, Second and Fifth Respondents [Respondents] [collectively, the parties] have all served applications for leave to appeal the judgment and/or order, this includes an application for cross-appeal by the Applicant. To avoid any confusion which may arise as a result of the respective applications filed, I shall retain the reference of each party as they appeared in the main application.
2. I have considered the concise grounds of appeal formulated by the Respondents in their respective applications for leave to appeal as too, the concise grounds relied on by the Applicant in its application for leave to cross appeal.
3. I have read the judgment, reconsidered the reasons and the order and have come to the conclusion that I have no further comments to add. Having said that, if one has regard, not only to the importance of the subject matter upon which I adjudicated, but the importance of its outcome to the respective parties, the Poultry Industry and International Trade relations, the cumulative grounds of appeal and cross-appeal are persuasive.
4. It is for these reasons that the threshold of both section 17(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 have been met and leave should be granted to all the parties.
5. In the premises, the parties respective applications are successful. I make the following order:
1. The Applicant, the First, Second and Fifth Respondents are granted leave to appeal and/or cross appeal, as the case maybe, directly to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
2. Costs to be costs in the Appeal.
L.A. RETIEF
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Appearances:
For the Applicant: Adv. H Epstein SC Adv. S Tshikila Instructed by: Malatji & Co Attorneys c/o Macintosh, Cross & Farquharson For the First Respondent: Adv E Muller Adv JW Kiarie Instructed by: State Attorney: Pretoria For the Second Respondent: Adv. N H Maenetje SC Adv. M Salukazana Instructed by: State Attorney: Pretoria For the Fifth Respondent: Adv. A Cockrell SC Instructed by: Webber Wentzel c/o Hills Incorporated Judgment granted: 31 January 2024