Saidex (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister Of Minerals And Energy N.O and Others (37651/2008) [2009] ZAGPPHC 355 (1 December 2009)

Saidex (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister Of Minerals And Energy N.O and Others (37651/2008) [2009] ZAGPPHC 355 (1 December 2009)

The court found that the matter was complex and of significant importance to the applicants, involving issues not previously considered by a higher court. Although the relief sought was broader than what was previously granted, and the court had refused the application on the basis of competence, it acknowledged that another court might reach a different conclusion. The judge therefore exercised discretion to grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, considering the possibility of a different outcome and the interests of justice.

Citation
[2009] ZAGPPHC 355
Parties
Applicant: Saidex (Pty) Limited; Applicant: Frits Stephanus Visser; Applicant: Este Minerals CC; Applicant: D & R Diamond CC; Applicant: CS Diamond CC; Applicant: Platinum Shadow Trade 101 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Minister of Minerals & Energy N.O; Respondent: Department of Minerals & Energy; Respondent: SA Diamond & Precious Metal Regulator; Respondent: Martinus Mamphenyane Mononela N.O.
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 December 2009
Case Number
37651/2008
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Refusal of Urgent Application
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal; costs to be costs in the cause.
Judges
Sapire
Legal Topics
Interim Relief, Preservation Order, Leave to Appeal, Constitutional Challenge, Diamond Act, Urgency Procedure
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Interim Relief Preservation Order Leave to Appeal Constitutional Challenge Diamond Act Urgency Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saidex (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Frits Stephanus Visser

Applicant

Este Minerals CC

Applicant

D & R Diamond CC

Applicant

CS Diamond CC

Applicant

Platinum Shadow Trade 101 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Minister of Minerals & Energy N.O

Respondent

Department of Minerals & Energy

Respondent

SA Diamond & Precious Metal Regulator

Respondent

Martinus Mamphenyane Mononela N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Refusal of Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the refusal of urgent interim relief.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to preservation orders pending constitutional challenge to amendments to the Diamond Act.
  3. 3 Whether the High Court was competent to grant the full scope of relief sought by the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the matter was complex and of significant importance to the applicants, involving issues not previously considered by a higher court. Although the relief sought was broader than what was previously granted, and the court had refused the application on the basis of competence, it acknowledged that another court might reach a different conclusion. The judge therefore exercised discretion to grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, considering the possibility of a different outcome and the interests of justice.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal; costs to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • The applicants are granted leave to appeal against the judgment given on 16 October 2008 to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
  • The costs of this application are to be costs in the cause.