Cell C (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (30959/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 265 (17 March 2025)

Cell C (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (30959/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 265 (17 March 2025)

The court held that the issue of review jurisdiction had already been finally determined by Tolmay J, whose judgment was not appealed and remains binding on the parties. The pending Constitutional Court appeal in the Richards Bay matter, even if it results in a different interpretation of section 47(9)(e) of the Customs and Excise Act, will have no legal consequence in the present matter unless Tolmay J's judgment is set aside. The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that a stay of proceedings would serve the interests of justice, the parties, or the court. Accordingly, the application for a stay was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 265
Parties
Applicant: Cell C (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 March 2025
Case Number
30959/2019
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Constitutional Court Appeal
Outcome
Application for stay of proceedings dismissed with costs.
Judges
N. Janse Van Nieuwenhuizen
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Review Jurisdiction, Customs and Excise Act, Finality of Judgments
Civil Procedure Tax Law Stay of Proceedings Review Jurisdiction Customs and Excise Act Finality of Judgments

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cell C (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Constitutional Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court should stay the main and interlocutory applications pending the outcome of the Constitutional Court appeal in the Richards Bay matter.
  2. 2 Whether the previous judgment of Tolmay J, which determined the court's lack of review jurisdiction, is final and binding on the parties.
  3. 3 Whether the interests of justice require a stay of proceedings in light of the pending Constitutional Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the issue of review jurisdiction had already been finally determined by Tolmay J, whose judgment was not appealed and remains binding on the parties. The pending Constitutional Court appeal in the Richards Bay matter, even if it results in a different interpretation of section 47(9)(e) of the Customs and Excise Act, will have no legal consequence in the present matter unless Tolmay J's judgment is set aside. The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that a stay of proceedings would serve the interests of justice, the parties, or the court. Accordingly, the application for a stay was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Court Disposition

Application for stay of proceedings dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel on scale C.