South African Municipal Workers Union Provident Fund v Tlokwe Local Municipality and Others (51643/16) [2022] ZAGPPHC 195 (23 March 2022)
The court found that, having considered the submissions of both parties, the requirements of section 17(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts Act were satisfied. The applicant demonstrated reasonable prospects of success or other compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard. Both counsel agreed that the Full...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] ZAGPPHC 195
- Parties
- Applicant: South African Municipal Workers Union National Provident Fund; Respondent: Tlokwe Local Municipality; Respondent: The Municipal Manager: Tlokwe Local Municipality; Respondent: The Chief Financial Officer: Tlokwe Local Municipality; Respondent: The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 51643/16
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Delivered on 13 March 2019.
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted to the Full Bench of the division.
- Judges
- Brett
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Superior Courts Act Section 17, Prospects of Success
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
South African Municipal Workers Union National Provident Fund
Applicant
Tlokwe Local Municipality
Respondent
The Municipal Manager: Tlokwe Local Municipality
Respondent
The Chief Financial Officer: Tlokwe Local Municipality
Respondent
The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Delivered on 13 March 2019.
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has satisfied the requirements for leave to appeal under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act.
- 2 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success or other compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard.
- 3 Which court is the appropriate forum for the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, having considered the submissions of both parties, the requirements of section 17(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts Act were satisfied. The applicant demonstrated reasonable prospects of success or other compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard. Both counsel agreed that the Full Bench of the division is the appropriate forum for the appeal. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted to the Full Bench.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted to the Full Bench of the division.
Orders
- Leave to appeal is granted to the Full Bench of this division.
- Costs of this application are to be costs in the appeal, including the costs consequent upon the employment of senior counsel.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 51643/16
DATE: 23/03/2022
In the matter between:
SOUTH AFRICAN MUNICIPAL WORKERS
UNION NATIONAL PROVIDENT FUND Applicant
And
TLOKWE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
THE MUNICIPAL MANAGER: TLOKWE
First Respondent
LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER:
Second Respondent
TLOKWE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Third Respondent
THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE SOUTH
AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICES
Fourth Respondent
J U D G M E N T
BRETT, AJ:
The applicant seeks leave to appeal the judgment that I delivered on 13 March 2019.
The grounds of appeal relied on by the applicant are fully articulated in it’s notice of application for leave to appeal, which were developed upon in the heads of argument and oral submissions made.
The first, second and third respondents also filed heads of argument and made oral submissions at the hearing of this application.
I am indebted to both counsel for their assistance herein.
Section 17 of the Superior Courts Act: 10 of 2013 provides as follows:
17 Leave to appeal
1) Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of the opinion that –
(a) (i) the appeal would have reasonable prospects of success; or
(ii) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration.
Having regard to the submissions made by the parties I consider that both requirements under sections 17 (1) (a) (i)(ii) have been satisfied and that leave to appeal should be granted.
Both counsel were agreed that in the event of leave to appeal being granted the appropriate court would be the Full Bench of this
division. I agree that the appropriate court is the Full Bench.
In the result I make the following orders:
1. Leave to appeal is granted to the Full Bench of this division.
2. Costs of this application are to be costs in the appeal including the costs consequent upon the employment of senior counsel.
BRETT A J
Acting Judge of the High Court
23/03/2022