Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others v Sibiya (Leave to Appeal) (014981/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 873 (8 August 2024)
The court found that the order under appeal is interim in nature and, after considering all grounds and submissions, was not convinced that another court would reach a different conclusion. There are no reasonable prospects of success nor compelling reasons to grant leave to appeal. The application for leave to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPPHC 873
- Parties
- Applicant: Minister of Defence and Military Veterans; Applicant: Secretary for Defence; Applicant: Chief of the South African National Defence Force; Applicant: Chief of the South African Army; Applicant: Chief Human Resources; Applicant: Adjutant General: Defence Legal Services Division; Applicant: Deputy Director, Secretariat of the Grievance Board; Respondent: Vukile Ezrom Sibiya
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 014981/2024
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Bench
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- Ally
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Prospects of Success, Interim Order, Costs Award
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Minister of Defence and Military Veterans
Applicant
Secretary for Defence
Applicant
Chief of the South African National Defence Force
Applicant
Chief of the South African Army
Applicant
Chief Human Resources
Applicant
Adjutant General: Defence Legal Services Division
Applicant
Deputy Director, Secretariat of the Grievance Board
Applicant
Vukile Ezrom Sibiya
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Bench
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have demonstrated reasonable prospects of success for leave to appeal against the interim order.
- 2 Whether there are compelling reasons for granting leave to appeal in this matter.
- 3 Whether costs should be awarded against the applicants.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the order under appeal is interim in nature and, after considering all grounds and submissions, was not convinced that another court would reach a different conclusion. There are no reasonable prospects of success nor compelling reasons to grant leave to appeal. The application for leave to appeal is therefore dismissed, and costs are awarded against the applicants.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
- The applicants are to pay the costs of this application, the one paying the other to be absolved on scale B.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
46 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 014981/2024
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: YES
Date: 8 August 2024
In the matter between:
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS 1st Applicant
THE SECRETARY FOR DEFENCE
2nd Applicant
THE CHIEF OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN
NATIONAL DEFENCE FORCE
3rd Applicant
THE CHIEF OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN ARMY
4th Applicant
CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES
5th Applicant
ADJUTANT GENERAL: DEFENCE LEGAL SERVICES
DIVISION
6th Applicant
DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SECRETARIAT OF THE GRIEVANCE 7th Applicant
BOARD
and
VUKILE EZROM SIBIYA
Respondent
LEAVE TO APPEAL: JUDGEMENT
ALLY AJ
[1] This is an application by the Applicants for leave to appeal against the order and reasons given for such order. Applicants' Counsel in argument sought leave to the Full Bench of this Division.
[2] In this application, the Applicants were represented by Adv. W. Mokhare SC and Adv. D. Mtsweni. The Respondent was once again represented by Adv. H. Scholtz.
[3] It has now become trite that the test in applications for leave to appeal has changed to one which is heightened[1]. The Applicant is accordingly required to convince this Court that another Court 'would' come to another conclusion.
[4] I do not deem it necessary to repeat the grounds of appeal in this judgement save to state that I have considered all the grounds as well as the submissions and heads of argument of both parties in this application.
[5] As indicated in the written reasons for the Order, the Order is an interim one and as such I remain unconvinced that another Court would come to a different conclusion and as such there are no reasonable prospects of success nor, in my considered view, are there any compelling reasons why leave to appeal ought to be granted.
CONCLUSION
[6] Accordingly the following Order shall issue:
a). the application for leave to appeal is dismissed;
b). the Applicants are to pay the costs of this application, the one paying the other to be absolved on scale B.
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT, PRETORIA
Electronically submitted therefore unsigned
Delivered: This judgement was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to the Parties/their legal representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on Caselines. The date for hand-down is deemed to be 8 August 2024.
Date of virtual hearing: 24 July 2024
Date of reasons for judgment: 8 August 2024
Appearances:
Attorneys for the Applicants: STATE ATTORNEY PRETORIA NaQongqo@justice.gov.za Counsel for the Applicant: Adv. W. Mokhare [with Adv. D. Mtsweni] Attorneys for the Respondent: GRIEZEL VAN ZANTEN ATTORNEYS heidi@gvzinc.co.za Counsel for the Respondent: Adv. H. Scholtz
[1] The Mont Chevaux Trust v Tina Goosen 3 November 2014 (unreported judgement LCC Case No: LCC14R/2014; The Acting National Director of Public Prosecution v Democratic Alliance (unreported case no: 19577/09 dated 24 June 2016); First Reality (Pty) Ltd v Mitchell & Others 2021 ZALCC 21 dated 23 August 2021 @ para 2