Suid-Afrikaanse Roofdiertelers Vereniging and Others v Minister van Omgewingsake en Toerimse (1900/2007) [2009] ZAFSHC 91 (25 September 2009)
- Citation
- [2009] ZAFSHC 91
- Status
- Ruling
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- C.H.G. Van der Merwe, M.H. Rampai
- Case number
- 1900/2007
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- C.H.G. Van der Merwe, M.H. Rampai
- Case number
- 1900/2007
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that, after considering the grounds advanced by the applicants, there was no reasonable prospect that an appeal would succeed. Many of the proposed grounds overlapped or relied on issues not raised in the initial proceedings. The main grounds—whether the respondent properly considered the first applicant's representations and whether the 24-month self-sufficiency period was rational—were found to lack merit. The court was not persuaded that any of the points raised could result in the order being set aside or varied on appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
- The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application, including the costs of two counsel.
02
Material facts
Parties
Suid-Afrikaanse Roofdiertelers Vereniging
Applicant Counsel: F.W.A. Danzfuss SCMatthys Christiaan Mostert
Applicant Counsel: F.W.A. Danzfuss SCDeon Cilliers
Applicant Counsel: F.W.A. Danzfuss SCMinister van Omgewingsake en Toerisme
Respondent Counsel: B. Knoetze SC03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Initial Application
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether there is a reasonable prospect that the appeal would succeed against the dismissal of the applicants' initial application.
- 02
Whether the respondent failed to properly consider the representations of the first applicant.
- 03
Whether the imposition of a 24-month self-sufficiency period was rational and justifiable.
- 04
Whether any of the proposed grounds of appeal have merit.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants argued that the matter is of significant importance to themselves and others, and has attracted public interest. They submitted numerous grounds for appeal, including that the respondent failed to properly consider the representations of the first applicant and that the decision to impose a 24-month self-sufficiency period was irrational and not justifiable. They also attempted to rely on aspects not raised in the initial proceedings, such as the alleged failure to consider representations from persons other than the first applicant.
- Respondent
- The respondent contended that the grounds of appeal lacked merit and that there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal. The respondent maintained that the decision-making process was rational and that all relevant representations were duly considered. The respondent opposed the application for leave to appeal and sought costs, including the costs of two counsel.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
JANIT v VAN DEN HEEVER AND ANOTHER NNO (No. 2) 2001 (1) SA 1062 (W) at 1064I–1065C
Leave to appeal may only be granted if the court is satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect that the appeal may succeed, meaning a reasonable prospect that the order of the court may be set aside or varied on appeal.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that, after considering the grounds advanced by the applicants, there was no reasonable prospect that an appeal would succeed. Many of the proposed grounds overlapped or relied on issues not raised in the initial proceedings. The main grounds—whether the respondent properly considered the first applicant's representations and whether the 24-month self-sufficiency period was rational—were found to lack merit. The court was not persuaded that any of the points raised could result in the order being set aside or varied on appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- The matter is of public interest, but public interest alone does not justify granting leave to appeal where there is no reasonable prospect of success.
- Several grounds of appeal were so clearly without merit that they did not warrant discussion in the judgment.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
- The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application, including the costs of two counsel.
Source and reliance status
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
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.
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Ruling
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 ân 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 ân 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 ân redelik vooruitsig van sukses op appèl is, dit wil sê ân 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 â 1065C.
[3] Die aansoek is gegrond op ân groot hoeveelheid beoogde gronde van appèl. Daar is egter ân 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 ân selfversorgingsperiode nie rasioneel regverdigbaar is nie en of ân 24 maande selfversorgingsperiode ân besluit daarstel wat ân redelike besluitnemer in die omstandighede nie kon neem nie. Ek is na oorweging nie oortuig daarvan dat daar ân redelike vooruitsig is dat ân 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
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.