Justice Alliance of South Africa and Another v National Minister of Safety and Security and Others (12994/09) [2011] ZAWCHC 344 (8 September 2011)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN)

Case No.: 12994/09

In the matter between:

JUSTICE ALLIANCE OF SOUTH AFRICA …...................................First Applicant

FALSE BAY GUN CLUB ….........................................................Second Applicant

and

NATIONAL MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY …................First Respondent

NATIONAL COMMISSIONER OF SAPS …..............................Second Respondent

APPEAL BOARD OF FIREARMS …...........................................Third Respondent

MINISTER OF FINANCE …......................................................Fourth Respondent

JUDGMENT: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL DELIVERED THURSDAY, 08 SEPTEMBER 2011

SALDANHA, J

[1.] The judgment in the main application was handed down on the 5th November 2010. It appears that on the 25th of November 2010 an application for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment with the Registrar of the court.

[2.] The application for leave to appeal was argued on 11th August 2011. The respondents in the matter indicated that they did not oppose the application and abided the decision of the court.

[3.] At the outset I wish to state that I have considered the application for leave to appeal and the submissions made by Mr. Simonzs who appeared on behalf of the applicants in this matter. I am of the view that another court may arrive at a different decision with regard to the interpretation and application of the various provisions of the Firearms Control Act 60 Of 2000. I am satisfied that it is appropriate that leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal be granted given the nature of the matter and it's public interest.

[4.] I however wish to deal very briefly in this judgment with the delay in the prosecution of the application for leave to appeal by the applicant.

[5.] The applicants legal representatives, when filing the application for leave to appeal on the 25th November 2010 failed to comply with the provisions of Practice Note 45(1) of the Western Cape High Court. In effect, they had failed to deliver a copy of such application together with the relevant court file to either my registrar or to my office as is required in terms of the Practice Note. On the 10th June 2011 when applying for a date for the hearing of the application for leave to appeal counsel for the applicants provided the court with a Note to explain the delay since the filing of the application for leave to appeal. The explanation proffered was the unavailability of the other two of the three counsel (the third being Mr. Simonzs) who had represented the applicant at the hearing of the main application. Due to the continued unavailability of the two counsel Mr. Simonzs proceeded to deal with the argument of the application for leave to appeal and therefore sought a date for the hearing thereof. A date was arranged with Mr. Simonzs for the hearing of the application for leave to appeal on the courts earliest availability after the mid-year recess. However at the hearing of the application no explanation was provided as to the non- compliance with the Practice Note. Mr. Simonzs undertook to obtain an explanation from his attorneys with regard thereto and to place same before the court. During the course of the argument of the application for leave to appeal the court pointed out to Mr. Simonzs that the applicants themselves had regarded the matter as urgent and while there was not any purposeful delay in the prosecution of the application for leave to appeal on their part I regarded the delay as unacceptable.

[6] The following order is made:-

(i) Application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal isgranted.

(ii) No order is made as to costs.