Suid-Afrikaanse Roofdiertelers Vereniging and Others v Minister van Omgewingsake en Toerimse (1900/2007) [2009] ZAFSHC 91 (25 September 2009)
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...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] ZAFSHC 91
- 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 of Administrative Action, Leave to Appeal, Costs Order
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 that the appeal would succeed against the dismissal of the applicants' initial application.
- 2 Whether the respondent failed to properly consider 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 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 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 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