MEC for Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs, KwaZulu-Natal Province and Another v South African Reserve Bank Prudential Authority and Others (38719/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1911 (21 November 2023)
The court found that, having considered the judgment and order delivered on 29 September 2023, as well as the arguments presented by all parties, there are no reasonable prospects that another court would come to a different conclusion. Furthermore, no compelling reasons were advanced to justify the grant of leave...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] ZAGPPHC 1911
- Parties
- Applicant: MEC for Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs, KwaZulu-Natal Province; Applicant: The Premier of Kwa-Zulu Natal Province; Respondent: South African Reserve Bank Prudential Authority; Respondent: Minister of Finance; Respondent: Ithala SOC Limited; Respondent: Ithala Development Finance Corporation Limited (Reg. No. 2001/007427/30)
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 38719/2022
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Delivered on 29 September 2023.
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal refused. Costs awarded against the applicants.
- Judges
- A Millar
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Costs Order, Prudential Regulation
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
MEC for Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs, KwaZulu-Natal Province
Applicant
The Premier of Kwa-Zulu Natal Province
Applicant
South African Reserve Bank Prudential Authority
Respondent
Minister of Finance
Respondent
Ithala SOC Limited
Respondent
Ithala Development Finance Corporation Limited (Reg. No. 2001/007427/30)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Delivered on 29 September 2023.
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the judgment and order delivered on 29 September 2023.
- 2 Whether there are reasonable prospects that another court would come to a different conclusion.
- 3 Whether there are compelling reasons justifying the grant of leave to appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, having considered the judgment and order delivered on 29 September 2023, as well as the arguments presented by all parties, there are no reasonable prospects that another court would come to a different conclusion. Furthermore, no compelling reasons were advanced to justify the grant of leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was refused. The applicants were ordered to pay the costs of the first and second respondents, including the costs of two counsel where more than one counsel was engaged.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal refused. Costs awarded against the applicants.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is refused.
- The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the first and second respondents on the scale as between party and party, including the costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel where more than one counsel was engaged.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
Case No. 38719/2022
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED: NO
DATE: 21 November 2023
SIGNATURE:
In the matter between: MEC FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, TOURISM AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS, KWAZULU-NATAL PROVINCE First Applicant THE PREMIER OF KWA-ZULU NATAL PROVINCE Second Applicant and THE SOUTH AFRICAN RESERVE BANK PRUDENTIAL AUTHORITY First Respondent THE MINISTER OF FINANCE Second Respondent ITHALA SOC LIMITED Third Respondent ITHALA DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED (REG. NO. 2001/007427/30) Fourth Respondent
JUDGMENT
MILLAR J
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment and order handed down on 29 September 2023.
[2] I have carefully considered the order granted by me and the reasons set out in the judgment together with the arguments presented at the hearing of the application for leave to appeal and in the heads of argument filed by all the parties.
[3] I am not persuaded that another court would come to a different conclusion or that there are any other compelling reasons why leave to appeal ought to be granted.
[4] In the circumstances it is ordered:
[4.1] The application for leave to appeal is refused.
[4.2] The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the first and second respondents on the scale as between party and party, such costs to include the cost consequent upon the employment of two counsel where more than one counsel was engaged.
A MILLAR
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
HEARD ON: 20 NOVEMBER 2023 JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON: 21 NOVEMBER 2023 FOR THE APPLICANTS: ADV. A DICKSON SC ADV. A CHRISTISEN ADV. T PALMER INSTRUCTED BY: MATTHEW FRANCIS INC. REFERENCE: MR. Y MAHARAJ FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT: ADV. N MAENETJE SC ADV. M MAJOZI INSTRUCTED BY: WERKSMANS ATTORNEYS REFERENCE: MS. C MANAKA FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT: ADV. L ABRAHAMS INSTRUCTED BY: THE STATE ATTORNEY PRETORIA REFERENCE: MS. Z ZENANI NO APPEARANCE FOR THE THIRD OR FOURTH RESPONDENTS