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
>>
2019
>>
[2019] ZAGPPHC 1101
|
|
Afribusiness NPC v Minister of Finance (34523/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 1101 (27 June 2019)
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE
NO:34523./2017
REPORTABLE:NO
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:NO
REVISED
26
June 2019
In
the matter between:
AFRIBUSINESS
NPC
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF
FINANCE
Respondent
JUDGMENT
FRANCIS
J
1. This
is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal
by the applicant
against the whole of my judgment and costs orders
made on 23 November 2018 after I had dismissed the applicant’s
application
with costs.
2. The
applicant had applied for the following relief in its application:
2.1 That
the promulgation and adoption of the Preferential Procurement
Regulations 2017 (the 2017 Regulations)
by the respondent (the
Minister of Finance ) is reviewed and set aside;
2.2
That the adoption of the 2017 Regulations be declared invalid;
2.3 The
respondent be ordered to pay the costs of the application.
2.
The applicant has raised 3 grounds for leave to appeal which are
contained in its application for
leave to appeal. I do not deem it
necessary to repeat those grounds for leave to appeal.
3.
It is trite. that the traditional test in deciding whether leave to
appeal should be granted
is whether there is a reasonable prospect
that another court may come to a different conclusion to that reached
by me in my judgment
or in terms of Section 17 of the Superior Courts
Act that there is some compelling reasons why the appeal should be
heard, including
conflicting judgments on the matter under
consideration.
4. It
was contended on behalf of the applicant that there are two
conflicting judgments
dealing with the same issues at hand. The first
is that of
Grinaker v Tender Baord (Mpumalanga)
[2002] 3 ALL
SA 336
T. The second matter is that of
Rainbow Civils CC v
Minister of Transport
(21158/2012)
[2013] ZAWCHC 3
(6 February
2013). I have re-read both judgments which in my view do not address
the issues at hand and are clearly distinguishable.
They both dealt
with the award of tenders.
5.
I have reconsidered the matter, and the arguments raised for and
against leave to appeal
and am not persuaded that there is a
reasonable possibility that another court will come to a different
conclusion to that reached
by me. There is further no other
compelling reason why the appeal should be heard and there are no
conflicting judgments on the
matter under consideration. The
application for leave to appeal does not raise new issues that were
not considered by me in my
judgment.
6.
The application for leave to appeal stands to be dismissed with
costs.
7. In
the circumstances I make the following order:
7.1
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
FRANCIS
J
HIGH
COURT JUDGE
GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION
FOR
APPLICANT
:
JG
BERGENTHUIN SC INSTRUCTED BY
HURTER SPIES
ATTORNEYS
FOR
RESPONDENT :
MD STUBBS
INSTRUCTED BY STATE
ATTORNEY
DATE
OF HEARING :
26 JUNE
2019
DATE
OF JUDGMENT :
27 JUNE2019