Neotel (Pty) Ltd v Telkom SA Soc Ltd and Others (605/2016) [2017] ZASCA 47 (31 March 2017)

Neotel (Pty) Ltd v Telkom SA Soc Ltd and Others (605/2016) [2017] ZASCA 47 (31 March 2017)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that an appeal does not lie against the reasons for a substantive order, but only against the order itself. The appellant sought to appeal only the reasons and findings regarding the BEE requirement under the Electronic Communications Act, not the substantive order, which had become moot. The court found no exceptional circumstances to justify departing from the established principle that reasons are not appealable. The appellant's reliance on previous cases was misplaced, as those cases involved appeals against substantive orders, not reasons. The court emphasized that allowing appeals against reasons would open the floodgates to piecemeal litigation and...

Citation
[2017] ZASCA 47
Parties
Appellant: Neotel (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Telkom SA SOC Ltd; Respondent: Mobile Telephone Networks (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Cell C (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Dimension Data (Pty) Ltd t/a Internet Solutions; Respondent: Dr Steven Mncube NO; Respondent: Ms Katharina Pillay NO; Respondent: Independent Communications Authority of South Africa; Respondent: Vodacom (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Internet Service Providers’ Association; Respondent: The Wireless Access Providers’ Group; Respondent: Crystal Web (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Sepco Communications (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: VSNL SNOSPV PTE Limited; Respondent: Nexus Connexion SA (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Minister of Communications; Respondent: Minister of Telecommunications and Postal Services; Appellant: Huge Telecom (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Huge Group Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 2017
Case Number
605/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Struck From the Roll for Lack of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Appeal struck from the roll for lack of jurisdiction; application to intervene dismissed.
Judges
Maya, Majiedt, Fourie, Gorven, Coppin
Legal Topics
Appealability, Electronic Communications Act, Black Economic Empowerment, Review of Administrative Action
Civil Procedure Telecoms and Media Appealability Electronic Communications Act Black Economic Empowerment Review of Administrative Action

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neotel (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Telkom SA SOC Ltd

Respondent

Mobile Telephone Networks (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Cell C (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Dimension Data (Pty) Ltd t/a Internet Solutions

Respondent

Dr Steven Mncube NO

Respondent

Ms Katharina Pillay NO

Respondent

Independent Communications Authority of South Africa

Respondent

Vodacom (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Internet Service Providers’ Association

Respondent

The Wireless Access Providers’ Group

Respondent

Crystal Web (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Sepco Communications (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

VSNL SNOSPV PTE Limited

Respondent

Nexus Connexion SA (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Minister of Communications

Respondent

Minister of Telecommunications and Postal Services

Respondent

Huge Telecom (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Huge Group Limited

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Struck From the Roll for Lack of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an appeal lies against the reasons for a substantive order and not the order itself.
  2. 2 Whether the interpretation of the BEE requirement under the Electronic Communications Act is appealable when the substantive order is moot.
  3. 3 Whether exceptional circumstances justify an appeal against reasons rather than the order.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that an appeal does not lie against the reasons for a substantive order, but only against the order itself. The appellant sought to appeal only the reasons and findings regarding the BEE requirement under the Electronic Communications Act, not the substantive order, which had become moot. The court found no exceptional circumstances to justify departing from the established principle that reasons are not appealable. The appellant's reliance on previous cases was misplaced, as those cases involved appeals against substantive orders, not reasons. The court emphasized that allowing appeals against reasons would open the floodgates to piecemeal litigation and...

Court Disposition

Appeal struck from the roll for lack of jurisdiction; application to intervene dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is struck from the roll.
  • The application to intervene in the appeal is dismissed.