Suid-Afrikaanse Roofdiertelers-Vereniging and Anders v Minister van Omgewingsake en Toerisme (1900/2007) [2009] ZAFSHC 138 (25 September 2009)
The court held that, despite the public interest and the temptation to grant leave to appeal, the legal position is clear: leave to appeal can only be granted if there is a reasonable prospect of success. Upon consideration of the grounds advanced, the court found significant overlap and that many grounds lacked...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] ZAFSHC 138
- Parties
- Applicant: Suid-Afrikaanse Roofdiertelers-Vereniging; Applicant: Matthys Christiaan Mostert; Applicant: Deon Cilliers; Respondent: Minister van Omgewingsake en Toerisme
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 1900/2007
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Initial Application
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
- Judges
- C.H.G. Van der Merwe, M.H. Rampai
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Rationality, Decision Making, Leave to Appeal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Suid-Afrikaanse Roofdiertelers-Vereniging
Applicant
Matthys Christiaan Mostert
Applicant
Deon Cilliers
Applicant
Minister van Omgewingsake en Toerisme
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Initial Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there is a reasonable prospect of success on appeal against the dismissal of the applicants' application.
- 2 Whether the respondent properly considered the representations of the first applicant.
- 3 Whether the imposition of a 24-month self-sufficiency period was rational and justifiable.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that, despite the public interest and the temptation to grant leave to appeal, the legal position is clear: leave to appeal can only be granted if there is a reasonable prospect of success. Upon consideration of the grounds advanced, the court found significant overlap and that many grounds lacked merit. The main issues concerned whether the respondent properly considered the first applicant's representations, the rationality of the 24-month self-sufficiency period, and whether the decision was one a reasonable decision-maker could have made. The court was not convinced that there was a reasonable prospect of success on any of these points. Accordingly, the application for...
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two advocates.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
36 paragraphs
VRYSTAATSE HOË HOF, BLOEMFONTEIN
REPUBLIEK VAN SUID-AFRIKA
Saak Nr. : 1900/2007
In die aansoek van:
SUID-AFRIKAANSE ROOFDIERTELERS-
VERENIGING 1ste Applikant
MATTHYS CHRISTIAAN MOSTERT 2de Applikant
DEON CILLIERS 3de Applikant
en
DIE MINISTER VAN OMGEWINGSAKE
EN TOERISME Respondent
CORAM: RAMPAI, R et VAN DER MERWE, R ______________________________________________________
UITSPRAAK: VAN DER MERWE, R
AANGEHOOR OP: 14 SEPTEMBER 2009
______________________________________________________
GELEWER OP: 25 SEPTEMBER 2009
[1] Hierdie is ‘n aansoek om verlof om na die Hoogste Hof van Appèl te appelleer teen die afwysing van die applikante se aansoek in hierdie hof op 11 Junie 2009.
[2] Die aangeleentheid is van groot belang vir die applikant asook verskeie ander persone en het ‘n mate van openbare belangstelling
uitgelok. Die versoeking is dus daar om verlof om te appelleer toe te staan. Die regsposisie is egter dat verlof om te appelleer slegs toegestaan kan word indien die hof tevrede is dat daar ‘n redelik vooruitsig van sukses op appèl is, dit wil sê ‘n redelike vooruitsig dat die bevel van die hof op appèl ter syde gestel of gewysig mag word. Sien JANIT v VAN DEN HEEVER AND ANOTHER NNO (No. 2) 2001 (1) SA 1062 (W) op 1064I – 1065C.
[3] Die aansoek is gegrond op ‘n groot hoeveelheid beoogde gronde van appèl. Daar is egter ‘n beduidende mate van oorvleueling in die uiteensetting daarvan. Daar word ook in die uiteensetting van beoogde gronde van appèl gepoog om te steun op aspekte wat nie deel van die applikant se saak voor ons was nie, soos byvoorbeeld dat die respondent sou versuim het om die vertoë van ander persone dan die eerste applikant te oorweeg. Verskeie gronde van appèl het myns insiens so duidelik geen meriete nie dat dit nie hierin genoem hoef te word nie. Die gronde van appèl wat wel vermelding verg, gaan essensiëel oor of die eerste applikant se vertoë na die respondent nie behoorlik oorweeg is nie, of ‘n selfversorgingsperiode nie rasioneel regverdigbaar is nie en of ‘n 24 maande selfversorgingsperiode ‘n besluit daarstel wat ‘n redelike besluitnemer in die omstandighede nie kon neem nie. Ek is na oorweging nie oortuig daarvan dat daar ‘n redelike vooruitsig is dat ‘n appèl op enige van hierdie punte kan slaag nie. Dit volg dat die aansoek afgewys moet word.
[4] Die aansoek om verlof om te appelleer word afgewys met koste, insluitende die koste van twee advokate.
________________________
C.H.G. VAN DER MERWE, R
Ek stem saam.
_______________
M. H. RAMPAI, R
Namens die Applikante: Adv. F.W.A. Danzfuss SC
met
H. Murray In opdrag van:
Rossouws Prokureurs
BLOEMFONTEIN
Namens die respondent: Adv. B. Knoetze SC
G.T. Langenhoven
In opdrag van:
Staatsprokureur
/em