Turners Shipping (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (Leave to Appeal) (2022/059481) [2025] ZAGPPHC 677 (3 July 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPPHC 677
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Bam
- Case number
- 2022/059481
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Bam
- Case number
- 2022/059481
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court considered the grounds advanced by the applicant and the opposition by the respondent. Applying the test under Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, the judge found that another court may reasonably reach a different conclusion on the issues raised, particularly regarding the applicant's liability and status under the relevant statutory provisions. The judge was persuaded that there are reasonable prospects of success in an appeal or, alternatively, compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard. Accordingly, leave to appeal to the Full Court of the Division was granted.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal is granted to the Full Court of this Division. Costs will be costs in the appeal.
Orders
- Leave to appeal is granted to the Full Court of this Division.
- Costs will be costs in the appeal.
02
Material facts
Parties
Turners Shipping (Pty) Ltd
Applicant Counsel: Adv J.P Vorster SC; Adv L.K OlsenCommissioner for the South African Revenue Service
Respondent Counsel: Adv J Peter SC; Adv K Boshomane03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Court
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant falls within the definition of exporter under the relevant legislation.
- 02
Whether the respondent has legal basis to hold the applicant liable as agent for payment of duties.
- 03
Whether the applicant is the person concerned for purposes of Section 76A.
- 04
Whether the amount demanded is deemed to be duty for purposes of recoverability.
- 05
Whether liability under Section 76A arises at the time of demand.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contends that the court erred in its interpretation of the applicant's conduct and status, specifically regarding its classification as an exporter, its liability as an agent for payment of duties, its status as the person concerned under Section 76A, the nature of the amount demanded as duty, and the timing of liability under Section 76A. The applicant argues that these errors led to an incorrect finding of liability.
- Respondent
- The respondent opposes the application, arguing that an appeal lies against the order and not the reasons. They assert that the grounds advanced by the applicant would not alter the order granted by the court and therefore, leave to appeal should be refused.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 17(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
Leave to appeal may only be granted where the judge is of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or there is some other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard, such as conflicting judgments.
- 02
Mothuloe Incorporated Attorneys v Law Society of the Northern Province and Another (213/16) [2017] ZASCA 17 (22 March 2017)
The test for leave to appeal is whether there are reasonable prospects of success, not merely an arguable case or a possibility of success.
- 03
Caratco (Pty) Ltd v Independent Advisory (Pty) Ltd (982/18) [2020] ZASCA 17; 2020 (5) SA 35 (SCA) (25 March 2020)
If the court is unpersuaded of prospects of success, it must still consider whether there is a compelling reason to entertain the appeal, such as an important question of law or a discreet issue of public importance.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court considered the grounds advanced by the applicant and the opposition by the respondent. Applying the test under Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, the judge found that another court may reasonably reach a different conclusion on the issues raised, particularly regarding the applicant's liability and status under the relevant statutory provisions. The judge was persuaded that there are reasonable prospects of success in an appeal or, alternatively, compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard. Accordingly, leave to appeal to the Full Court of the Division was granted.
Obiter and limits
- The merits of the case remain vitally important and are often decisive in determining whether leave to appeal should be granted.
- An appeal lies against the order, not the reasons for judgment, but the grounds for appeal must be capable of affecting the outcome.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal is granted to the Full Court of this Division. Costs will be costs in the appeal.
- Leave to appeal is granted to the Full Court of this Division.
- Costs will be 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 HGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT PRETORIA
CASE NO: 2022/059481
DOH: 20 JUNE 2025
DECIDED: 03 JULY 2025
1) REPORTABLE: NO
2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
3) REVISED.
DATE 03 JULY 2025
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
TURNERS SHIPPING (Pty) LTD Applicant And
COMMISSIONER
FOR THE SOUTH AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICE Respondent
This judgment has been handed down remotely and shall be circulated to the parties by way of email / uploading on Caselines. The date of hand down shall be deemed to be 03 July 2025.
ORDER
1. Leave is granted to the Full Court of this Division.
2. Costs will be costs in the appeal.
JUDGMENT
Bam J
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Full Court of this Division, alternatively to the Supreme Court of Appeal. Applicant’s grounds of appeal are set out in its Notice of Application for leave to appeal, filed on 13 August 2024.
2. Legislative provision for applications for leave to appeal is made in Section 17(1) (a) (i) and (ii) of the Superior Court Act[1]. The applicable provisions may be summarized thus:
‘Section 17 (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 a reasonable prospect of success; or
(ii) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration;’
Summary of the parties’ contentions
3. Applicant advances grounds on which it contends leave may be competently granted on both subsection (1) (a) (i) and (ii). The respondent is opposing the application. They cite the trite principle that an appeal lies against the order and not at the reasons. On the basis that the grounds advanced by the applicant would not change the order granted by this court, they say leave must be refused.
Test for leave to appeal
4. The test for leave to appeal is whether there are any reasonable prospects of success in an appeal. It is not whether a litigant has an arguable case or a mere possibility of success[2]. ‘If the court is unpersuaded of the prospects of success, it must still enquire into whether there is a compelling reason to entertain the appeal. A compelling reason includes an important question of law or a discreet issue of public importance that will have an effect on future disputes. But here too, the merits remain vitally important and are often decisive.’[3]
Applicant’s grounds
5. The applicant advances, inter alia, the following grounds in its application:
5.1 The court erred in finding that the applicant falls within the definition of exporter;
5.2 The Court erred in finding that the respondent has legal basis to hold the applicant liable as agent for payment of duties;
5.3 The Court erred in finding that the applicant is not the person concerned for purposes of Section 76A;
5.4 The Court erred in finding that the amount demanded is deemed to be duty for purposes of recoverability;
5.5 The Court erred in finding that liability under Section 76A arises at the time of demand.
6. Applicant contends that as a result of misconstruing its conduct, the court came to the incorrect conclusion, presumably as to the applicant’s liability.
7. I have carefully considered the applicant’s grounds for leave. I am persuaded that another court may come to a different finding. Accordingly leave is granted to the Full Court of this Division.
Order
N.N BAM J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
Date of Hearing:
20 June 2025
Date of Judgment:
03 July 2025
Appearances:
Applicant’s Counsel: Adv J.P Vorster SC with him Adv Adv L.K Olsen Instructed by: EVH Inc Van Hyssteen ℅ Klagsbruin, Edelstein, Bosman Du Plessis Inc Nieuw Muckleneuk, Pretoria Respondent’s Counsel: Adv J Peter SC with him Adv K Boshomane Instructed by: MacRobert Attorneys Brooklyn, Pretoria
[1] Act 10 of 2013.
[2] Mothuloe Incorporated Attorneys v Law Society of the Northern Province and Another (213/16) [2017] ZASCA 17 (22 March 2017), paragraph 18.
[3]Caratco (Pty) Ltd v Independent Advisory (Pty) Ltd (982/18) [2020] ZASCA 17; 2020 (5) SA 35 (SCA) (25 March 2020).
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.