Institute for Economic Justice and Another v Minister of Social Development and Others (071891/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 369 (25 April 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPPHC 369
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Twala M L
- Case number
- 071891/2023
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Twala M L
- Case number
- 071891/2023
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the original order issued on 18 March 2025 contained ambiguity regarding the granting of leave to appeal and the costs order, which impeded the proper processing of the respondents' Notice of Appeal. In terms of Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court, the court has the power to vary its order to correct such ambiguity. Accordingly, the order was amended to explicitly grant the respondents leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal and to clarify that costs will be costs in the appeal.
Court disposition
Order varied to grant leave to appeal and clarify costs; respondents may proceed with appeal.
Orders
- The respondents are granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
- Costs to be costs in appeal.
02
Material facts
Parties
Institute for Economic Justice
Applicant Counsel: J. Brickhill#PAYTHEGRANTS
Applicant Counsel: MBE MbikiwaMinister of Social Development
Respondent Counsel: T NtoaneSouth African Social Security Agency
Respondent Counsel: T NtoaneMinister of Finance
Respondent Counsel: G Marcus SC03
Procedural history
Posture
Variation Application / Variation Order Following Judgment; Leave to Appeal Granted
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the original order required amendment or clarification to facilitate the appeal process.
- 02
Whether leave to appeal should be formally granted to the respondents.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants did not oppose the respondents' request for clarification or amendment of the order to facilitate the appeal process. They accepted that the order should be varied to remove any ambiguity and to ensure proper processing of the appeal.
- Respondent
- The respondents argued that the original order contained ambiguity regarding the granting of leave to appeal and the costs order, which hindered the Registrar's processing of their Notice of Appeal. They requested that the order be amended under Rule 42(1)(b) to clarify these points.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court
A court may mero motu rescind or vary an order in which there is an ambiguity, patent error, or omission, but only to the extent of such ambiguity, error, or omission.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the original order issued on 18 March 2025 contained ambiguity regarding the granting of leave to appeal and the costs order, which impeded the proper processing of the respondents' Notice of Appeal. In terms of Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court, the court has the power to vary its order to correct such ambiguity. Accordingly, the order was amended to explicitly grant the respondents leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal and to clarify that costs will be costs in the appeal.
Obiter and limits
- The amendment of the order is limited strictly to the extent necessary to remove ambiguity and facilitate the appeal process.
- The judgment was delivered electronically and is deemed handed down on 25 April 2025.
Court disposition
Order varied to grant leave to appeal and clarify costs; respondents may proceed with appeal.
- The respondents are granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
- Costs to be costs in 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
Order
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case Number: 071891/2023
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: YES
DATE 25 April 2025
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
INSTITUTE
FOR ECONOMIC
JUSTICE
First Applicant
#PAYTHEGRANTS
Second Applicant
and
MINISTER
OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
First Respondent
SOUTH
AFRICAN SOCIAL SECURITY AGENCY
Second Respondent
MINISTER
OF
FINANCE
Third Respondent
JUDGMENT
TWALA, J
[1] This is a variation order envisaged in terms of Rule 42(1) (b) of the Uniform Rules of Court relating to the judgment I handed down electronically, by circulation to the parties' legal representatives on 18 March 2025.
[2] The Rule provides that the court may, in addition to any other powers it may have, mero motu rescind or vary an order in which there is an ambiguity, or a patent error or omission, but only to the extent of such ambiguity, error or omission.[1]
[3] On 11 April 2025, the respondents brought to my attention that they have served their Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal. However, the Registrar required that the order I previously issued be amended or clarified to facilitate proper processing of the appeal.
[4] In correcting the order of the 18 March 2025 in terms of Rule 42 of the Uniform Rules of Court, I amend the order to read as follows:
3.1. The respondents are granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
3.2. Costs to be costs in appeal.
TWALA
M L
Judge of the High Court of South Africa
Gauteng Division, Pretoria
For the Applicants: Advocate J. Brickhill Advocate MBE Mbikiwa Advocate M Kritzinger Instructed by:
SERI Law Clinic Tel: 011 356 5860 nkosinathi@seri-sa.org For the First and Second Respondents: Advocate T Ntoane Instructed by: State Attorney – Pretoria Tel: 012 309 1575 Tletageng@justice.gov.za For the Third Respondent: Advocate G Marcus SC Advocate A Friedman Instructed by: State Attorney – Pretoria Tel: 012 309 1575 pheMokoena@justice.gov.za Date of Hearing:
DECIDED
ON THE PAPERS Date of Judgment: 18 March 2025 Date of amendment: 25 April 2025
Delivered: This judgment and order was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to the Parties/their legal representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on Case Lines. The date of the order is deemed to be the 25 April 2025.
[1] Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
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.