Smada Security Services (Pty) Ltd v Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (081565/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 311 (26 March 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPPHC 311
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Holland-Muter
- Case number
- 081565/2023
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Holland-Muter
- Case number
- 081565/2023
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that, considering all the facts and arguments, there are reasonable prospects of success and compelling circumstances to grant leave to appeal. The alleged mistake in the tender process, while not accepted by the court as a mistake, could be viewed differently by another court. Additionally, the potential liquidation of the applicant's business and resulting job losses constitute compelling circumstances. Accordingly, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted.
Orders
- Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted.
- Costs of the application are costs in the appeal.
02
Material facts
Parties
Smada Security Services (Pty) Ltd
Applicant Counsel: Adv A PJ ELS SCDepartment of Justice and Constitutional Development
Respondent Counsel: Adv Ramawele SC03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
- 02
Whether there is a reasonable prospect of success on appeal.
- 03
Whether there are compelling circumstances justifying the grant of leave to appeal.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that leave to appeal should be granted because there is a reasonable prospect of success, as the facts support such a prospect. It was submitted that the respondent made a clear mistake when considering the two tenders received, and that the respondent should have considered the hard copy of the tenders, which would have revealed that the electronic tender was incomplete regarding the sector tendered for and the different prices between sector A and B. The applicant also contended that the large difference in pricing between sector A and B could result in the liquidation of the business and significant job losses, constituting compelling circumstances for granting leave.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintained that there was no mistake in the tender process and that the court a quo's decision was correct. The respondent argued that the electronic tender was properly considered and that the alleged discrepancies did not amount to a material error. The respondent further contended that the circumstances cited by the applicant did not constitute compelling reasons to grant leave to appeal.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013
Leave to appeal may only be granted if the court is of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success, raising the bar for granting leave.
- 02
Section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013
Leave to appeal may also be granted if there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that, considering all the facts and arguments, there are reasonable prospects of success and compelling circumstances to grant leave to appeal. The alleged mistake in the tender process, while not accepted by the court as a mistake, could be viewed differently by another court. Additionally, the potential liquidation of the applicant's business and resulting job losses constitute compelling circumstances. Accordingly, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that the word 'only' in section 17(1)(a)(i) raises the bar for granting leave to appeal, requiring a certain measure of certainty that another court will differ from the court a quo.
- The court observed that losses suffered by the applicant may result in liquidation and significant job losses, which are relevant considerations in determining compelling circumstances.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted.
- Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted.
- Costs of the application are costs in the appeal.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
CASE NO: 081565/2023
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED:
DATE 26 March 2025
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
SMADA SECURITY SERVICES (PTY) LTD
Appellant/Applicant
and
DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE AND
CONSTITUTIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
Respondent
JUDGMENT
(The matter was heard in open court and judgment was reserved. A written judgment was uploaded onto the electronic file of the matter on CaseLines and the date of uploading thereof onto CaseLines is deemed to be the date of the judgment)
BEFORE: HOLLAND-MUTER J:
[1] The issue of when leave to appeal be granted by a judge in the court a quo is governed by the provisions of Section 17 of the Supreme Court Act, 10 of 2013. Section 17(1)(a)(i) stipulates that the court may only grant leave to appeal if the court is of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success. The word “only” used in this subsection raised the bar of the test that now applied to the merits indicating a certain measure
of certainty that another court will differ from the court a quo.
[2] Subsection 17(1)(a)(ii) stipulates that a court may grant leave to appeal if there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
[3] It was argued on behalf of the appellant that leave should be granted because there is a reasonable prospect of success taken into consideration that the facts most likely support such prospect. It was argued that the respondent made a clear ‘mistake”
when considering the two tenders received. It was argued that the respondent should have considered the hard copy of the tenders which would indicate that the respondent should have realised that the electronic tender was incomplete regarding the sector tendered for and the different prices between sector A & B in the tenders. The court was of the view that this was not a mistake but another court may decide the opposite.
[4] Counsel for the appellant further submitted that in view of the rather large difference in pricing between sector A & B, the losses suffered by the appellant may result in the business to be liquidated and that a large number of employees may lose their work. This, he argued, constitutes other compelling circumstances why the appeal should be granted.
[5] Taken into consideration all the facts and the arguments raised, I am of the view that there are reasonable prospect of success and compelling circumstances to grant leave to appeal.
[6] After consideration leave to appeal against the judgment is granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
ORDER:
1. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal in granted.
2. Costs of the application is costs in the appeal.
HOLLAND-MUTER J
Judge of the Pretoria High Court
26 March 2025
Application was heard on 25 March 2025.
Judgment was handed down by uploading onto CaseLines on 26 March 2025.
Appearances:
Appellant/Applicant: Adv A PJ ELS SC Respondent: Adv Ramawele SC
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.