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 1772
|
|
Don't Waste Shared Services (Pty) Ltd and Others v Compensation Fund and Others (38343/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1772 (9 October 2023)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
Case
No:
38343/2022
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED
SIGNATURE
DATE: 09 OCTOBER 2023
In
the matter between:
DON’T
WASTE SHARED SERVICES (PTY) LTD
FIRST
APPLICANT
DON’T
WASTE KZN 1 (PTY) LTD
SECOND
APPLICANT
DON’T
WASTE KZN 2 (PTY) LTD
THIRD APPLICANT
DON’T
WASTE CTN 1 (PTY) LTD
FOURTH
APPLICANT
DON’T
WASTE CTN 2 (PTY) LTD
FIFTH APPLICANT
DON’T
WASTE EC1 (PTY) LTD
SIXTH
APPLICANT
DON’T
WASTE GAU 1 (PTY) LTD
SEVENTH APPLICANT
DON’T
WASTE GAU 2 (PTY) LTD
EIGHTH APPLICANT
DON’T
WASTE GAU 3 (PTY) LTD
NINTH
APPLICANT
DON’T
WASTE GAU 4 (PTY) LTD
TENTH APPLICANT
DON’T
WASTE GAU 5 (PTY) LTD
ELEVENTH
APPLICANT
DON’T
WASTE GAU 6 (PTY) LTD
TWELFTH APPLICANT
And
THE
COMPENSATION FUND
FIRST RESPONDENT
THE
COMISSIONER OF THE COMPENSATION FUND
SECOND
RESPONDENT
MINISTER
OF EMPLOYMENT AND
THIRD RESPONDENT
LABOUR:
TW MXESI
DEPUTY
MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND
FOURTH
RESPONDENT
LABOUR:
BOITUMELO MOLOI
THE
DIRECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
FIFTH RESPONDENT
EMPLOYMENT
AND LABOUR: THOBILE LAMATI
JUDGMENT
RETIEF
J
1.
The Second to Twelfth Applicants [Applicants] appeal against
those parts of the judgment which, this Court handed down
(ex tempore) on the 21 July 2023, in respect of Part B of the relief
sought by the Applicants and costs. The application was argued
on the
20 July 2023.
2.
The issue for determination was a judicial review brought by way
of the
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000
[PAJA] in
which the Applicants sought to review and set aside the
classification decisions of the First and Second Respondents
[Respondents] made in terms of the Compensation for Occupational
Injuries and Disease Act 130 of 1993 [COIDA]..
3.
The nub of the grounds of appeal relied on traverse the
interpretation and application, if any, of section 91 of COIDA. The
Appellants
contend,
inter alia
, that section 91 is not
applicable to the Applicants and that reliance and the application
thereof,
vis n vis
as an internal remedy mechanism referred to
in PAJA is misplaced.
4.
That the provisions of
section 17(1)(a)(i)
of the
Superior Courts
Act 10 of 2013
[Superior Courts Act] are satisfied in that the appeal
would have a reasonable prospect of success. The Applicants further
rely
and, set out reasons in terms of section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the
Superior Court Act to amplify their section 17 submissions. These
reasons appear compelling.
5.
Having heard Counsel for both the Applicants and the Respondent I
am of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect
of
success and as such, the following order is made:
IT
IS ORDERED THAT:
1.
The Second to Twelfth Applicants are
granted leave to appeal to the Full Bench of this Division.
2.
The Respondents are ordered to pay the
costs, which costs to be inclusive of two Counsel.
L.A.
RETIEF
Judge
of the High Court
Gauteng
Division
Appearances
Counsel for the Appellants:
Adv. H Gerber SC
Adv. M Coetzee
Instructed by:
Cox Yeats Attorneys
c/o Alant, Gell & Martin Inc
Counsel for the Respondents:
Adv. MC Phathela
Instructed by:
The State Attorney, Pretoria
Leave to Appeal heard on the:
28 September 2023
Leave granted on the:
9 October 2023