Zimele Investment Enterprise Company (Pty) Ltd v South African National Roads Agency Ltd and Others (36023/2021 and 36024/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 541 (20 July 2022)

HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)

CASE NO: 36023/2021 & 36024/2021

REPORTABLE: NO.

OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO

REVISED.

20 July 2022

In the matter between:

ZIMELE INVESTMENT ENTERPRISE

COMPANY (PTY) LTD Applicant

and

SOUTH AFICAN NATIONAL ROADS AGENCY LTD First Respondent

TELEGENIX TRADING 799 (PTY) LTD Second Respondent

SERVEST FACILITY SERVICES (PTY) LTD

Third Respondent

DNA CONSULTING ENGINEERS &

PROJECT MANAGERS

Fourth Respondent

JUDGMENT

(In the applications for Leave to Appeal and to Cross-Appeal )

This matter has been heard by way of a virtual hearing and disposed of in the terms of the Directives of the Judge President of this Division. The judgment and order are accordingly published and distributed electronically.

DAVIS, J

[1] In this matter the originally cited third respondent (Telegenix) sought leave to appeal and the original applicant (Zimele) subsequently applied for leave to cross-appeal the judgment of this court dated 14 April 2022. The parties have convinced me that such leave should be granted and, after debate, I am of the view that leave to appeal and to cross-appeal should be granted to a full court of this division in terms of Section 17(6)(a) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013.

[2] SANRAL, who has otherwise abided the decision of this court, however opposed Zimele’s application to cross-appeal the costs order granted in respect of the subsequent abandoned Part A of the main application. This was wherein Zimele initially sought an interdict in a somewhat belated urgent application. SANRAL was joined in argument by Telegenix to the effect that the costs order was correctly granted, was as a result of the exercise of this court’s discretion and that such exercise was not properly or sufficiently attacked by Zimele in its notice of application for leave to cross-appeal. I have listened to

argument on this topic and agree with Telegenix and SANRAL that the threshold for leave to appeal an exercise of a discretion had not been met and that there are no other compelling reasons why such leave should be granted.

[3] Order in both 36023/2021 and 36024/2021:

1. The applications for leave to appeal and to cross-appeal the judgment and orders of this court of 14 April 2022, save for paragraph 6.1 of those orders, are granted.

2. Leave to appeal and to cross-appeal shall be to the full court of this division.

3. Costs of the applications for leave to appeal and to cross-appeal shall be costs in the appeals.

N DAVIS

Judge of the High Court

Gauteng Division, Pretoria

Date of Hearing: 19 July 2022

Judgment delivered: 20 July 2022

APPEARANCES:

Case no: 36023/2021

For the Applicant:

Adv T D Prinsloo

Attorney for the Applicant: Lowndes

Dlamini Inc, Santon

c/o Riaan Bosch Attorney, Pretoria

For the 1st Respondent: Adv

S Scott

Attorneys for the 1st Respondent: Goitseona Pilane Attorneys, Pretoria

For the 2nd Respondent: Adv

M Collins SC

Attorneys for the 2nd Respondent: Dukhi Attorneys, Durban

c/o Wiese & Wiese Inc., Pretoria

Case no: 36024/2021

For the Applicant: Adv

T D Prinsloo

Attorney for the Applicant: Lowndes

Dlamini Inc, Santon

For the 1st Respondent: Adv

S Scott

Attorneys for the 1st Respondent: Dube N Attorneys, Johannesburg

c/o Shabangu Attorney, Pretoria

Attorneys for the 2nd Respondent: Dukhi Attorneys, Durban