About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2023
>>
[2023] ZAGPPHC 47
|
|
Christelike Maatskaplike Raad Noord ("CMR North") v Department of Social Development and Others (32944/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 47 (3 February 2023)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
AFR
I
CA
(GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA)
CASE
NO:
32944/2022
(1)REPORTABLE:
NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED: NO
DATE:
3 FEBRUARY 2023
In
the application between:
CHRISTELIKE
MAATSKAPLIKE RAAD
NOORD
(
"
CMR
NORTH")
A
ppl
i
c
a
n
t
and
DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Fi
r
st
Responden
t
MEC
FOR
THE
GAUTENG
DEPARTMENT
Secon
d
Responde
nt
OF
SOC
I
AL
DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR-GENERAL,
DEPARTMENT
OF
Third
Respondent
SOCIAL
DEVELOPMENT
MINISTER
OF
THE
DEPARTMENT
OF
Fourth
Respondent
SOCIAL
DEVELOPMENT
VARIOUS
INTERVENING PARTIES
Ami
ci
C
ur
i
a
e
Coram:
Millar J
Heard
on:
3
February 2023
Delivered:
3 February
2023 - This judgment was handed down electronically by
circulation
to the
parties' representatives by email
,
by being
uploaded to the
CaseLines
system of
the GD and by release to SAFLII. The date and time for hand-down is
deemed to be 12h45 on 3 February 2023.
JUDGMENT
MILLAR
J
1.
This
is
an application for leave to appeal brought by the first respondent
against a judgment and orders granted by me on 20 October
2022
.
The
application for leave to appeal was served out of time on14 December
2022 and thereafter
the
next
day an application for condonation was served
.
The
application for condonation was not opposed
.
It
is in the interests of justice that this application be heard and so
I indicated that I intend to grant condonation
.
[1]
2.
The
test for granting leave to appeal The test for the granting of leave
to appeal pertinent to the present matter is set out in
section 17(1)
of
the
Superior
Courts Act
[2]
as
follows:
"(1)
Leave to
appeal
may
only be given
where
the
judge
or judges
concerned
are of
the
opinion that
(a)
(i)
the
appeal
would have
a
reasonable
prospect of success or
(ii)
there
is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard
,
including
conflicting
Judgments
on the matter under
consideration
"
3.
I have
considered the grounds upon which the application has been brought
and the reasons given by me for the judgment.
I have also
considered the submissions
made by
counsel for the granting of leave to appeal on the part of the first
respondent and those opposing the granting of leave
to appeal on
behalf of the applicant.
4.
I am not
persuaded
that
another court would come to a different conclusion
or that there
is some other compelling reason why leave to appeal should be
granted.
5.
Since the
application
for
condonation was not opposed
,
I do not
intend to make any
order for
costs
in
regard thereto
.
The costs
order that I
make relates solely to the application for leave to appeal.
There is no
reason to depart
from
the
normal
rule that the scale of costs be paid as between
party and
party
.
6.
In the
circumstances
,
I make the
following
order:
6.1
Condonation
is granted
for
the
late
filing
of the
application
for
leave
to
appeal.
6.2
The
application
for leave to
appeal is refused
.
6.3
The first
respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the applicant on the scale
as between party and party which costs are to include
the costs
consequent upon the employment of two counsel.
A
MILLAR
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
HEARD
ON
:
3 FEBRUARY 2023
JUDGMENT
DELIVERED ON
:
3
FEBRUARY 2023
COUNSEL
FOR THE APPLICANTS
:
ADV.
L HAUPT SC
ADV.
L VAN DER WESTHUIZEN
INSTRUCTED
BY
:
F
VAN WYK INCORPORATED
REFERENCE
:
MS. A JACOBS
COUNSEL
FOR THE 1
ST
RESPONDENT:
ADV.
M
BOTMA
INSTRUCTED
BY
:
THE STATE ATTORNEY
,
PRETORIA
REFERENCE
:
MR. S MODUKANELE
[1]
Ferris
v First Rand Bank
2014 (3) SA 39
(CC) at 43G-44A
[2]
10
of 2013