General Council of the Bar of South Africa and Another v Minister of Finance and Others (2023/132695) [2024] ZAGPPHC 741 (2 August 2024)
The court found that the respondents failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. After considering the grounds for leave and the submissions of both parties, the judge was not persuaded that another court would reach a different conclusion or that any compelling reason existed to grant leave to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPPHC 741
- Parties
- Applicant: General Council of the Bar of South Africa; Applicant: Advocates for Transformation; Respondent: Minister of Finance; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Correctional Services; Respondent: Solicitor-General
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 2023/132695
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment and Order
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
- Judges
- Millar
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Superior Courts Act Section 17, 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
General Council of the Bar of South Africa
Applicant
Advocates for Transformation
Applicant
Minister of Finance
Respondent
Minister of Justice and Correctional Services
Respondent
Solicitor-General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment and Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents have demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
- 2 Whether there is any compelling reason for leave to appeal to be granted under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
- 3 Whether costs should follow the result of the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondents failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. After considering the grounds for leave and the submissions of both parties, the judge was not persuaded that another court would reach a different conclusion or that any compelling reason existed to grant leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was refused, and costs were awarded against the respondents, including the costs of three counsel where engaged.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is refused.
- The respondents are ordered to pay the costs of the application, including the costs consequent upon the engagement of three counsel where so engaged.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
Case No. 2023/132695
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED
DATE: 2 AUGUST 2024
SIGNATURE:
In the matter between: THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE BAR OF SOUTH AFRICA FIRST APPLICANT ADVOCATES FOR TRANSFORMATION SECOND APPLICANT And THE MINISTER OF FINANCE FIRST RESPONDENT THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES SECOND RESPONDENT THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL THIRD RESPONDENT Coram: Millar J Heard on: 30 July 2024 Delivered: 2 August 2024 - This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' representatives by email, by being uploaded to the CaseLines system of the GD and by release to SAFLII. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 09H00 on 2 August 2024.
JUDGMENT
MILLAR J
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment and order handed down on 28 June 2024.
[2] For convenience I will refer to the parties as they were in the main application save to note that it is the respondents who seek leave to appeal and the applicants who oppose its grant.
[3] The test for granting leave to appeal The test for the granting of leave to appeal pertinent to the present matter is set out in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act[1] as follows:
“(1) Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned
are of the opinion that
(a) (i) the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or
(ii) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration”
[4] I have considered the grounds upon which the application has been brought and the reasons given by me in the judgment for the order granted. I have also considered the submissions made by counsel for the granting of leave to appeal on the part of the respondents and those opposing the granting of leave to appeal on behalf of the applicants.
[5] I am not persuaded that another court would come to a different conclusion or that there is some other compelling reason why leave to appeal should be granted.
[6] The costs will follow the result.
[7] In the circumstances, I make the following order:
[6.1] The application for leave to appeal is refused with costs which costs are to include the costs consequent upon the engagement of 3 counsel where so engaged.
A MILLAR
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
HEARD ON:
30 JULY 2024
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON:
2 AUGUST 2024
APPEARANCES
COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST & SECOND APPLICANTS: ADV. P LOUW SC ADV. N LUTHULI ADV. M SALUKAZANA INSTRUCTED BY: EDWARD NATHAN SONNENBERGS INC. REFERENCE: MR. A MOOSAJEE COUNSEL FOR THE SECOND AND THIRD RESPONDENTS: ADV. N CASSIM SC ADV. L NKOSI-THOMAS SC ADV. N NTULI INSTRUCTED BY: STATE ATTORNEY, PRETORIA REFERENCE: MR. I CHOWE NO APPEARANCE FOR THE FOURTH RESPONDENT
[1] 10 of 2013.