Post Office Retirement Fund v South African Post Office SOC Ltd and Others (35043/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 793 (9 December 2020)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)

(1) REPORTABLE: NO

(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO

DATE: 11-12- 2020

Case Number: 35043/2020

In the matter between:

POST OFFICE RETIREMENT FUND

APPLICANT

and

THE SOUTH AFRICAN POST OFFICE SOC LTD

FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS AND

DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES SECOND RESPONDENT

SOUTH AFRICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION THIRD RESPONDENT

COMMUNICATION WORKERS UNION FOURTH RESPONDENT

DEMOCRATIC POSTAL AND COMMUNICATIONS FIFTH RESPONDENT

UNION

JUDGMENT-LEAVE TO APPEAL

KUBUSHI J

This judgement is handed down electronically by circulating to the parties’ representatives by email and by uploading on Caselines.

[1] The Post Office Retirement Fund ("the applicant") brings an application for leave to appeal the judgment and order (including the order as to costs), in terms of section 17 (1) (a) (i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 (“the Superior Courts Act”), of the judgment and order I handed down on 14 September 2020, to the Supreme Court of Appeal or the Full Court of this Division.

[2] The applicant, in this opposed application for leave to appeal, raises a number of grounds on which it relies for this application to be granted.

[3] Section 17 (1) (a) (ii) of the Superior Courts Act provides that leave to appeal may only be given where the Judge or Judges concerned are of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success.

[4] Having considered the submissions in the respective heads of argument for and against the granting of the application for leave to appeal, I am of the opinion that the appeal has a reasonable prospect of success, and as such, the application for leave to appeal ought to be granted.

[5] The applicant seeks leave to appeal to the either the Supreme Court of Appeal or to the Full Court of this Division. In terms of section 17 (6) of the Superior Courts Act, leave to appeal should ordinarily, where it is against the judgment of a Division as a court of first instance consisting of a single judge, be to the Full Court of the Division. It can be to the Supreme Court of Appeal if the decision to be appealed involves a question of law of importance or where the Supreme Court of Appeal is required to resolve differences of opinions or the administration of justice either generally or in the particular case, requires consideration of the Supreme Court of Appeal.

[6] I am in agreement with counsel for the applicant that if leave is granted it should be directed straight to the Supreme Court of Appeal as this is an important and serious matter which the Supreme Court of Appeal should pronounce on definitively. I in that regard direct that leave to appeal be to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

[7] Consequently, I make the following order: -

1. Leave to appeal the judgment and order (including the order as to costs), handed down on 14 September 2020, to the Supreme Court of Appeal, is granted.

2. Costs are costs in the appeal.

E.M. KUBUSHI

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

Appearance:

Applicant’s Counsel

: Adv. Terry Motau SC

Adv. Realeboga Tshetlo

Applicant’s Attorneys

: Norton Fulbright South Africa Inc.

First Respondent’s Counsel

: Adv. JPV McNally SC

First Respondent’s Attorneys

: Webber Wentzel.

Date of hearing

: 03 December 2020

Date of judgment

: 09 December 2020