Compensation Commissioner and Others v Compensation Solutions (Pty) Ltd (49156/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 263 (18 March 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPPHC 263
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- HF Jacobs
- Case number
- 49156/2021
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- HF Jacobs
- Case number
- 49156/2021
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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 MakhubelaDirector-General, Department of Labour
Applicant Counsel: Adv M S NetsoMinister of Labour
Applicant Counsel: Adv M S NetsoCompensation Solutions (Pty) Ltd
Respondent Counsel: Adv E J J Nel03
Procedural history
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
- 01
Whether the applicants have reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the order upholding the respondent's exceptions to the special pleas of prescription.
- 02
Whether there exists any compelling reason for granting leave to appeal in respect of the exceptions to the special pleas.
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
Legal principles
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
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);
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.