Golden Arrow Bus Services (Pty) Limited v Minister of Transport for RSA and Others (1277/2009) [2009] ZAWCHC 121 (17 February 2009)
The court held that, based on a purposive reading of the Constitution and the Public Finance Management Act, judgment debts sounding in money against the State are a direct charge on the National Revenue Fund. The relevant statutory and constitutional provisions do not prohibit immediate payment of such debts....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] ZAWCHC 121
- Parties
- Applicant: Golden Arrow Bus Services (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Minister of Transport for RSA; Respondent: Minister of Finance for RSA; Respondent: Government of RSA; Respondent: MEC for the Department of Public Transport, Roads and Works for Western Cape
- Court
- Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 1277/2009
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Principal Judgment
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal on paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 of the principal judgment orders.
- Judges
- Binns-Ward
- Legal Topics
- National Revenue Fund, Direct Charge Against State, Judgment Debt Payment, Bill of Rights Implications
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Golden Arrow Bus Services (Pty) Limited
Applicant
Minister of Transport for RSA
Respondent
Minister of Finance for RSA
Respondent
Government of RSA
Respondent
MEC for the Department of Public Transport, Roads and Works for Western Cape
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Principal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Constitution and Public Finance Management Act prohibit immediate payment of judgment debts sounding in money from the National Revenue Fund.
- 2 Whether judgment debts against the State constitute a 'direct charge' on the National Revenue Fund.
- 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted given the general importance of the issue.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that, based on a purposive reading of the Constitution and the Public Finance Management Act, judgment debts sounding in money against the State are a direct charge on the National Revenue Fund. The relevant statutory and constitutional provisions do not prohibit immediate payment of such debts. However, the court acknowledged that the issue is of general and practical importance and that another court might reasonably reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal on the contested orders.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal on paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 of the principal judgment orders.
Orders
- Leave to appeal against paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 of the orders made in paragraph 33 of the principal judgment is granted.
- The appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA(WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT. CAPE TOWN!CASE NO: 1277/2009
DATE: 17 FEBRUARY 2009
In the matter between;
GOLDEN ARROW BUS SERVICES (PTY) LIMITED APPLICANT
versus
MINISTER OF TRANSPORT FOR RSA 1st RESPONDENT
MINISTER OF FINANCE FOR RSA 2nd RESPONDENT
GOVERNMENT OF RSA 3rd RESPONDENT
MEC FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC TRANSPORT. ROADS AND
WORKS FOR WESTERN CAPE 4th RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
BINNS-WARD. A J:
In this matter, on 30 January, I gave judgment in an amount sounding in money in favour of Golden Arrow Bus Services and declared that the second respondent, in his capacity as the functionary politically responsible for the Treasury, was not prohibited by the provisions of either section 213(2) of the Constitution or section 15(1 ){a) of the Public Finance Management Act 1/1999 from effecting immediate payment of the judgment debt arising from the judgment sounding in money from the National Revenue Fund, upon the request of the applicant and/or the first respondent (who was the Minister of Transport).
In arriving at that conclusion, I based my views on a reading of the Constitution which led me to conclude that it was an implied
provision of the Constitution - having regard to the affected fundamental human rights in the Bill of Rights, section 165 and section 213 - that judgment debts sounding in money against the State were a "direct charge" on the National Revenue Fund.
The second respondent in the principal proceedings applies for leave to appeal against that part of my judgment.
In my opinion it is readily conceivable that another Court might come to a different view and therefore it is appropriate to grant leave to appeal against paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the orders made in paragraph 33 of my judgment. Notwithstanding that the judgment debt in question has - so I have been advised -since been paid, the issue which is sought to be challenged, or which is sought to be prosecuted on appeal is of general
Interest and substantial everyday practical importance. In the circumstances it is appropriate that the appeal be heard by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The following order is therefore made:
Leave to appeal against paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the orders made in paragraph 33 of the principal judgment is granted;
The appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court of Appeal; and
The costs of this application shall be costs in the appeal.
BINNS-WARD, A J