Forensic Investigation Risk and Recovery Management (Pty) Ltd v Unemployment Insurance Fund and Others (088430-2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 921 (16 September 2024)

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF

SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION,

PRETORIA

088430-2024

Heard on: 12 September 2024

Judgment: 16 September 2024

(1) REPORTABLE: NO

(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO

(3) REVISED.

DATE: 16 SEPTEMBER 2024

SIGNATURE

In the matter between:

FORENSIC

INVESTIGATION RISK AND RECOVERY

Applicant

MANAGEMENT (PTY) LTD

And

THE

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND

First Respondent

24SIX CA

Second Respondent

ALTITUDE

BUSINESS ADVISORY

Third Respondent

CHAPU CA

Fourth Respondent

DITHETO

ACCOUNTANTS

Fifth Respondent

EZEE

CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

Sixth Respondent

IZALA

VERIFICATORS

Seventh Respondent

IZALA

VERIFICATORS CPT

Eighth Respondent

KST

HOLDING

Ninth Respondent

KULUNGWANA

ACCOUNTANTS

Tenth Respondent

LEBONE

LA AFRICA CONSULTANTS

Eleventh Respondent

LEOLO

AND PARTNERS CHARTERED

ACCOUNTANTS

Twelfth Respondent

MAINE

MANAGEMENT AND CHARTERED

ACCOUNTANTS

Thirteenth Respondent

MKWANAZI

INVESTMENTS

Fourteenth Respondent

MNB

CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

Fifteenth Respondent

MOROBI

CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

Sixteenth Respondent

NAMBE

FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS

Seventeenth Respondent

NDEMEX

CONSULTING

Eighteenth Respondent

NKS

CASA

Nineteenth Respondent

OMC

CONSULTING

Twentieth Respondent

RSND

CONSULTING PROFESSIONALS

Twenty-First Respondent

SAMBA

SOLUTIONS

Twenty-Second Respondent

SIMDAR

CONSULTING

Twenty-Third Respondent

SONDLO

CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS Twenty-Fourth Respondent

SVZ

CONSULTING

Twenty-Fifth Respondent

THABI

CONSULTING

Twenty-Sixth Respondent

THE

ACCOUNTING VILLAGE

Twenty-Seventh Respondent

UBUNTU

BUSINESS ADVISORY AND

CONSULTING

(Listed as UBAC FORENSICS on CIPC) Twenty-Eighth Respondent

THE

DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

Twenty-Ninth Respondent

This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected and is handed electronically by circulation to the Parties / their legal representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on CaseLines. The date for handing is deemed to be 16 September 2024.

JUDGMENT

STRIJDOM J

[1] In this matter the first and twenty-third respondent seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, alternatively to the Full Court of the Gauteng Division, against the whole of my judgment and costs order handed down on 20 August 2024 in the Urgent Court.

[2] The application for leave to appeal is opposed by the applicant in the main application.

[3] The grounds of appeal in respect of the first and twenty-third respondents are set out in the respective applications for leave to appeal. I do not intend to repeat same.[1]

[4] Applications for leave to appeal are governed by sections 16 and 17 of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013 (the Act). Section 17 makes provision for leave to be granted where the presiding judge or judges concerned are of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success, or if there is some compelling reason why the appeal should be heard including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration.

[5] With the enactment of section 17 of the Act, the test has now obtained statutory force and is to be applied using the word “would” in deciding whether to grant leave. In other words, the test is: “Would another Court come to a different decision.”

[6] Each application for leave to appeal must be decided on its own facts. Some examples of what will be regarded as compelling reasons have been identified. They include:

(a) The substantial importance of the case to the applicant or to both the applicant and respondent;

(b) The decision sought to be appealed against involves an important question of law;

(c) The administration of justice either generally or if the particular case concerned requires the appeal to be heard; and

(d) An issue of public importance which will have an effect on future matters.

[7] It is trite that appellants need to convince the Court on proper grounds that they have prospects of success on appeal. Those prospects of success must not be remote, but there must exist a reasonable chance of succeeding.

[8] Having considered all the grounds of appeal raised by the first and twenty-third respondents as well as the facts and the law as presented by the parties, I am of the view that the appeal has reasonable prospects of success.

[9] When the facts and the law were examined, there is in my view also a sound and rational basis for the conclusion that there are compelling reasons why the appeal should be heard. This matter is of substantial importance to both the applicant and the respondents and would raise important constitutional issues and questions of law.

[10] In the result, the following order is made:

1. Leave to appeal is granted to the first and twenty-third respondents to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

2. Costs will be costs in the appeal.

STRIJDOM J.J

JUDGE OF THE HIGH

COURT

GAUTENG DIVISION,

PRETORIA

Appearances:

For the Applicant in the main application: Adv A Granova Instructed by: V Chetty Inc For the First Respondent: Adv E Van As Instructed by: The State Attorney For the Twenty-Third Respondent: Mr N.P Voyi Instructed by: Voyi Inc Attorneys

[1] Caseline: 031 – 1 to 031 – 13 First respondent’s grounds of appeal 031 -1 to 030 – 14.