Fair-Trade Independent Tobacco Association NPC and Others v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services and Another (115176/2023; 115375/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1007 (25 September 2024)

Fair-Trade Independent Tobacco Association NPC and Others v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services and Another (115176/2023; 115375/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1007 (25 September 2024)

The Court found that SARS failed to address the appealability of the interim order and did not engage with the interests of justice inquiry. The interim interdict was not final and did not dispose of the constitutional challenge, serving only to govern the situation until final determination. SARS's novel point regarding the Court's duty under Section 172(1) of the Constitution was misplaced, as the interim relief did not require a declaration of invalidity at this stage. The applicants had established a prima facie right to privacy due to SARS's conduct under the impugned rule. The grounds for leave to appeal, including those relating to costs, did not meet the threshold set by Section...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 1007
Parties
Applicant: Fair-Trade Independent Tobacco Association NPC; Applicant: Best Tobacco Company (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Carnilinx (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Folha Manufacturers (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Home of Cut Rag (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Protobac (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Bozza Tobacco (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Kasp Tobacco (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Afroberg Tobacco Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Amalgamated Tobacco Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Harrison Tobacco (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: United Tobacco Group (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services; Respondent: Minister of Finance
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 September 2024
Case Number
115176/2023; 115375/2023
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interim Interdict Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where employed, taxed on scale B.
Judges
L.A. Retief
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Appealability of Interim Orders, Constitutional Challenge, Separation of Powers, Prima Facie Right, Costs Orders
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Interim Interdict Appealability of Interim Orders Constitutional Challenge Separation of Powers Prima Facie Right Costs Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fair-Trade Independent Tobacco Association NPC

Applicant

Best Tobacco Company (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Carnilinx (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Folha Manufacturers (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Home of Cut Rag (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Protobac (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Bozza Tobacco (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Kasp Tobacco (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Afroberg Tobacco Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Amalgamated Tobacco Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Harrison Tobacco (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

United Tobacco Group (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services

Respondent

Minister of Finance

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interim Interdict Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the interim interdict order appealable in terms of the interests of justice?
  2. 2 Did the applicants establish a prima facie right to privacy warranting interim relief?
  3. 3 Does the failure to declare the impugned rule unconstitutional affect the lawfulness of the interim order?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that SARS failed to address the appealability of the interim order and did not engage with the interests of justice inquiry. The interim interdict was not final and did not dispose of the constitutional challenge, serving only to govern the situation until final determination. SARS's novel point regarding the Court's duty under Section 172(1) of the Constitution was misplaced, as the interim relief did not require a declaration of invalidity at this stage. The applicants had established a prima facie right to privacy due to SARS's conduct under the impugned rule. The grounds for leave to appeal, including those relating to costs, did not meet the threshold set by Section...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where employed, taxed on scale B.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel, where so employed, to be taxed on scale B.