Download PDF

South Africa Order

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Institute for Economic Justice and Another v Minister of Social Development and Others (071891/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 369 (25 April 2025)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

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 Mbikiwa

Minister of Social Development

Respondent Counsel: T Ntoane

South African Social Security Agency

Respondent Counsel: T Ntoane

Minister of Finance

Respondent Counsel: G Marcus SC

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Variation Application / Variation Order Following Judgment; Leave to Appeal Granted

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

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

  1. 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.

Source document

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Order

[2025] ZAGPPHC 369

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.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Rule 42(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.