Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Compensation Commissioner and Others v Compensation Solutions (Pty) Ltd (49156/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 263 (18 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 the grounds for leave to appeal against the order upholding the exception to the first special plea of prescription, based on sections 43 and 44 of COIDA, were without merit and had been decided by the courts previously. The applicants' pleadings regarding the second special plea lacked essential averments and did not meet the required standard for pleadings in civil litigation. Consequently, the proposed appeal had no prospect of success, and there was no compelling reason to grant leave to appeal. The application for leave to appeal was refused with costs.

Court disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs.

02

Material facts

Parties

Compensation Commissioner

Applicant Counsel: Adv M Makhubela

Director-General, Department of Labour

Applicant Counsel: Adv M S Netso

Minister of Labour

Applicant Counsel: Adv M S Netso

Compensation Solutions (Pty) Ltd

Respondent Counsel: Adv E J J Nel

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following an Order Upholding Exceptions to Special Pleas of Prescription.

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicants contend that the court erred in upholding the respondent's exceptions to their special pleas of prescription, arguing that the pleas were valid and that the matter warrants consideration by a higher court. They rely on sections 43 and 44 of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA) and assert that the exceptions should not have been upheld.
Respondent
The respondent maintains that the exceptions to the special pleas of prescription were correctly upheld, as the pleas lacked essential averments required by law. The respondent argues that the applicants' pleadings failed to meet the necessary standard to inform the respondent of the case to be met and to set out sufficient allegations of fact, and that there are no prospects of success or compelling reasons for leave to appeal.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Hunter v Financial Services Board 2017 JBR 0941 (GP)

    Leave to appeal should only be granted where there are reasonable prospects of success or other compelling reasons.

  2. 02

    Caratco (Pty) Ltd v Independent Advisory (Pty) Ltd 2020 (5) SA 35 (SCA)

    Pleadings must inform the opponent of the case to be met and set out sufficient allegations of fact for the court to distil the facta probanda.

  3. 03

    Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others v Southern Africa Litigation Centre and Others 2016 (3) SA 317 (SCA)

    The test for leave to appeal is whether the appeal would have reasonable prospects of success or there are compelling reasons for it to be heard.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the grounds for leave to appeal against the order upholding the exception to the first special plea of prescription, based on sections 43 and 44 of COIDA, were without merit and had been decided by the courts previously. The applicants' pleadings regarding the second special plea lacked essential averments and did not meet the required standard for pleadings in civil litigation. Consequently, the proposed appeal had no prospect of success, and there was no compelling reason to grant leave to appeal. The application for leave to appeal was refused with costs.

Obiter and limits

  • Pleadings serve the important function of informing the opponent of the case to be met and setting out sufficient allegations of fact for the court's convenience.
  • The principles applicable to applications for leave to appeal have been settled by the courts and must be strictly applied.

Court disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs.

Source and reliance status

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

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

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Judgment

[2024] ZAGPPHC 263

IN THE HIGH COURT OF

SOUTH AFRICA

(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)

Case No: 49156/2021

(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO

(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO

(3) REVISED.

DATE: 18 March 2024

SIGNATURE

In the matter between:

COMPENSATION

COMMISSIONER

1st

APPLICANT

DIRECTOR-GENERAL,

DEPARTMENT

LABOUR

2ND

APPLICANT

THE

MINISTER OF

LABOUR

3RD

APPLICANT

and

COMPENSATION SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD

RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

HF JACOBS, AJ:

[1] This is an application for leave to appeal an order upholding the exceptions noted by the respondent to two special pleas of prescription raised by the applicants. The principles applicable to applications for leave to appeal are set out in Hunter[1].

[2] The grounds upon which leave to appeal is sought against the order upholding the exception in respect of the first special plea of prescription based on sections 43 and 44 of the COIDA are without any merit. Those points have been decided on by our courts on more than one occasion. I am not of the opinion that the appeal against the order granted in that regard has any prospect

of success or that any other compelling reason exist why leave to appeal should be granted to the applicants.

[3] The main judgment explains why the second special plea lacks essential averments concerning the plea of prescription. Pleadings serve important functions in civil litigation namely to inform an opponent of the case to be met and to set out, for the convenience of the court, sufficient allegations of fact to distil the facta probanda. The applicants’ pleading falls foul of the required standard. In my opinion the proposed appeal has no prospect of success and there exist no compelling reason why leave to appeal should be granted.

[4] The application for leave to appeal is refused with costs.

H

F JACOBS

ACTING Judge of the High Court

GAUTENG DIVISION,

PRETORIA

Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ legal representatives by e-mail. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 14h00 on the 18th March 2024.

APPERANCES

Counsel for applicants: Adv M Makhubela Adv M S Netso Attorneys for defendants/respondents: State Attorney Counsel for plaintiff/excipient: Adv E J J Nel Attorneys for plaintiff/excipient: Quiryn Spruyt Attorneys

[1] Hunter v Financial Services Board 2017 JBR 0941 (GP); Caratco (Pty) Ltd v Independent Advisory (Pty) Ltd 2020 (5) SA 35 (SCA); Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others v Southern Africa Litigation Centre and Others 2016 (3) SA 317 (SCA);

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.

Hunter v Financial Services Board 2017 JBR 0941 (GP)

Case cited

Caratco (Pty) Ltd v Independent Advisory (Pty) Ltd 2020 (5) SA 35 (SCA)

Case cited

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others v Southern Africa Litigation Centre and Others 2016 (3) SA 317 (SCA)

Case cited

Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA)

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.