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
>>
2021
>>
[2021] ZAGPPHC 435
|
|
Compensation Commissioner and Another v Compensation Solutions (Pty) Ltd (80277/18) [2021] ZAGPPHC 435 (30 June 2021)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 80277/18
NOT
REPORTABLE
NOT
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES
REVISED
THE
COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER
First Applicant
THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF
THE
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR OF
THE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OF
THE
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
Second
Applicant
and
COMPENSATION
SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD
Respondent
JUDGMENT –
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
The
judgment
and
order
are
accordingly
published
and
distributed
electronically.
The
date
and time of hand down is deemed to be 10:00
on 30 June 2021
TEFFO, J
:
[1]
On 22 October 2019 I granted summary
judgment against the applicants for
payment of the
amount of R8 796 298,70 with costs.
[2]
The applicants seek leave to appeal against the whole of the judgment
and order on various grounds.
[3]
The application is opposed by the respondent.
[4]
The respondent has filed the supplementary heads of argument in which
it is submitted that the applicants have made payment
of the total
amount claimed and for which judgment was granted prior to this
application being decided.
[5]
Section 16(2)(a)
of the
Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013
provides that
when at the hearing of an appeal the issues are of such a nature that
the decision sought will have no practical
effect or result, the
appeal may be dismissed on that ground alone.
[6]
I agree with the submission on behalf of the respondent that the
matter is purely academic and that in view of the provisions
of
section 16(2)(a)
of the Superior Courts Act, the application is
precluded. It follows that the application falls to be dismissed.
Costs
[7]
The applicants have filed an application for leave to appeal and
proceeded to pay the amount claimed for which judgment was
granted
prior to the hearing of the application. This is one example of the
abuse of court processes. The applicants should not
have proceeded
with the application after paying the total amount claimed. They
should have withdrawn it. Under the circumstances
I am inclined to
order the applicants to pay punitive costs.
[8]
The matter was set down previously and had to be postponed as there
was no representation on behalf of the applicants.
[9]
In the result the following order is made:
1.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs on
attorney and client scale which costs are to include the costs of
the
previous appearance.
2.
The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of this application
jointly and severally the one paying the other is to be absolved.
M J TEFFO
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
For
the applicants: S S Maakane SC & W N Mothibe
Instructed
by: State Attorney
For
the respondent: C J Welgemoed
Instructed
by: Quiryn Spruyt Attorneys c/o V D T Attorneys
Date
of judgment: 30 June 2021