E.D.M.A v Meintjes and Meintjes Rekenmeesters CC and Another (632/2023) [2025] ZASCA 113 (29 July 2025)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances as required by section 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act for reconsideration of the refusal of special leave to appeal. The Court found that the applicant's dissatisfaction with the outcome and allegations of error in...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] ZASCA 113
- Parties
- Applicant: E[...] D[...] M[...] A[...]; Respondent: Meintjes and Meintjes Rekenmeesters CC; Respondent: Old Mutual Trust (Pty) Ltd t/a Old Mutual Trust
- Court
- Supreme Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 632/2023
- Procedural Posture
- Reconsideration Application / Application for Reconsideration of Refusal of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for reconsideration dismissed; matter struck from the roll; costs awarded against the applicant.
- Judges
- Mocumie, Keightley, Phatshoane
- Legal Topics
- Superior Courts Act Section 17 2 F, Leave to Appeal, Exceptional Circumstances, Costs Order
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
E[...] D[...] M[...] A[...]
Applicant
Meintjes and Meintjes Rekenmeesters CC
Respondent
Old Mutual Trust (Pty) Ltd t/a Old Mutual Trust
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Reconsideration Application / Application for Reconsideration of Refusal of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify reconsideration of the refusal of special leave to appeal under section 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act.
- 2 Whether the President's referral for reconsideration was warranted in this matter.
- 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to have the petition for special leave to appeal reconsidered.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances as required by section 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act for reconsideration of the refusal of special leave to appeal. The Court found that the applicant's dissatisfaction with the outcome and allegations of error in the majority judgment of the full court did not amount to a grave failure of justice or a risk to the administration of justice. The President's referral for reconsideration did not alter the requirement that exceptional circumstances must be present. As such, the application for reconsideration was dismissed, and the matter was struck from the roll with costs awarded against...
Court Disposition
Application for reconsideration dismissed; matter struck from the roll; costs awarded against the applicant.
Orders
- The matter is struck from the roll.
- The applicant is to pay the costs of the application for reconsideration.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT
Not Reportable
Case no: 632/2023
In the matter between:
E[...] D[...] M[...] A[...]
APPLICANT
and
MEINTJES AND MEINTJES REKENMEESTERS CC FIRST RESPONDENT
OLD MUTUAL TRUST (PTY) LTD
t/a OLD MUTUAL TRUST
SECOND RESPONDENT
Neutral citation: A[...] v Meintjes and Meintjes Rekenmeesters CC and Another (632/2023) [2025] ZASCA 113 (29 July 2025)
Coram: MOCUMIE, KEIGHTLEY JJA and PHATSHOANE AJA
Heard: 8 May 2025
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ representatives by email, publication on the Supreme Court of Appeal website and released to SAFLII. The date and time for the hand-down of the judgment is deemed to be 11h00 on 29 July 2025.
Summary: Section 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 – Referral by the President of the Supreme Court of Appeal – Reconsideration of refusal of a petition by the Supreme Court of Appeal – exceptional circumstances not established – matter struck from the roll.
ORDER
On application for reconsideration: referred in terms of s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013:
1 The matter is struck from the roll.
2 The applicant is to pay the costs of the application for reconsideration.
Phatshoane AJA (Mocumie, Keightley JJA concurring):
[1] This is an application for the reconsideration of a refusal by two judges of this Court to grant special leave to appeal on petition against a majority judgment and order of the full court of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria (the full court). The application is pursuant to a referral by the President of this Court under s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 (the Superior Courts Act).
[1] Cook v Morrison and Another [2019] ZASCA 8; [2019] 3 All SA 673 (SCA); 2019 (5) SA 51 (SCA).
[2] Ibid para 8.
[3] The section was amended by s 28 of the Judicial Matters Amendment Act 15 of 2023, which came into effect on 3 April 2024. It now reads as follows:
‘The decision of the majority of the judges considering an application referred to in paragraph (b), or the decision of the court, as the case may be, to grant or refuse the application shall be final: Provided that the President of the Supreme Court of Appeal may, in circumstances where a grave failure of justice would otherwise result or the administration of justice may be brought into disrepute, whether of his or her own accord or on application filed within one month of the decision, refer the decision to the court for reconsideration and, if necessary, variation.’ (Emphasis added.)
[4] Liesching and Others v S and Another [2016] ZACC 41; 2017 (4) BCLR 454 (CC); 2017 (2) SACR 193 (CC) (Liesching I) para 55; Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v Business Connexion (Pty) Ltd [2025] ZASCA 41; 2025 JDR 1488 (SCA); [2025] JOL 68853 (SCA) para 3.
[5] MV Ais Mamas Seatrans Maritime v Owners, MV Ais Mamas, and Another 2002 (6) SA 150 (C) at 156H-157C. See also Ntlemeza v Helen Suzman Foundation and Another [2017] ZASCA 93; [2017] 3 All SA 589 (SCA); 2017 (5) SA 402 (SCA) para 37.
[6] Avnit v First Rand Bank Ltd [2014] ZASCA 132; 2014 JDR 2014 (SCA); [2014] JOL 32336 (SCA) (Avnit).
[7] Van der Walt v Metcash Trading Ltd [2002] ZACC 4; 2002 (4) SA 317 (CC); 2002 (5) BCLR 454 (CC).
[8] Avnit paras 6-7.
[9] The principle was explained in S v Makwanyane and Another [1995] ZACC 3; 1995 (6) BCLR 665; 1995 (3) SA 391 (CC); [1996] 2 CHRLD 164; 1995 (2) SACR 1 para 307 as ‘[g]enerally, ubuntu translates as humaneness. In its most fundamental sense it translates as personhood and morality. Metaphorically, it expresses itself in umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu, describing the significance of group solidarity on survival issues so central to the survival of communities. While it envelops the key values of group solidarity, compassion, respect, human dignity, conformity to basic norms and collective unity, in its fundamental sense it denotes humanity and morality.’ (Emphasis in original quote.)
[10] Avnit para 6; See also Liesching and Others v S [2018] ZACC 25; 2018 (11) BCLR 1349 (CC); 2019 (1) SACR 178 (CC); 2019 (4) SA 219 (CC) (Liesching II) para 139; Nel v S 2025 JDR 2552 (SCA) (Nel) para 7.
[11] Avnit para 6. See also Motsoeneng v South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Ltd and Others [2024] ZASCA 80; 2025 (4) SA 122 (SCA) para 18; Nel para 22; Minister of Police and another v Ramabanta [2025] JOL 69177 (SCA) para 13.
[12] Stellenbosch Farmers' Winery Group Ltd and Another v Martell et Cie and Others 2003 (1) SA 11 (SCA).
[13] Ibid para 5.