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
>>
2018
>>
[2018] ZAGPPHC 175
|
|
Public Protector v South African Reserve Bank (52883/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 175 (28 March 2018)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
(1)
NOT REPORTABLE
(2)
NOT OF INTEREST TO
OTHER JUDGES
(3)
REVISED
Case number: 52883/2017
Date:28/3/2018
In the matter between:
PUBLIC
PROTECTOR
APPLICANT
And
SOUTH AFRICAN RESERVE
BANK
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
PRETORIUS
J ,
(1)
The
applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal in
terms of section 16(1)(a)(ii) of the
Superior
Courts Act
[1]
.
The applicant is seeking leave to
appeal against the
de bonis propriis
cost order that was granted against
her personally in paragraphs 4.3 of the order which provided:
"4.3 The first respondent,
in her personal capacity, is ordered to pay 15% of the costs of the
South African Reserve Bank on
an attorney and client scale, including
the costs of three counsel, de bonis propriis."
(2)
The
South African Reserve Bank launched a conditional application for
leave to cross appeal against the part of the judgment and
order of
the Full Bench that dismissed the Reserve Bank's application for a
declaration that the Public Protector had abused her
office during
the investigation that lead to Report 8 of 2017/2018. The application
is conditional and should only be granted in
the event that the court
grants leave to appeal to the Public Protector. The Reserve Bank will
not persist with the application
for leave to cross appeal if the
court refuses leave to appeal to the Public Protector.
(3)
At
the outset counsel for ABSA indicated to the court that it was not
clear from the application for leave to appeal, whether it
would
relate in any way to any other order. Correspondence between the
attorneys for ABSA and attorneys for the Public Protector
indicated
that the application for leave to appeal relates to the order under
prayer 4.3 of paragraph 131 of the judgment and is
premised on the
findings set out in paragraphs 127 and 128 of the judgment. Counsel
for the Public Protector satisfied the court,
and counsel for ABSA,
that the only order against which the application for leave to appeal
relates is the order under prayer 4.3.
(4)
After
this had been clarified, counsel for ABSA was excused.
(5)
We
have once more considered all arguments, the application for leave to
appeal, as well as sections 16(1)(a)(ii) and 17(1) of the
Superior
Courts Act.
(6)
We
find that there is no reasonable prospect that another court will
come to a different conclusion due to the reasons as set out
in the
judgment.
(7)
In
the result the following order is made:
1.
The application for leave to
appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judge
C Pretorius
I
agree.
Judge
NP Mngqibisa-Thusi
I
agree.
Judge
D S Fourie
Case
number :
52883/2017
Matter
heard on:
26 March 2018
For
the 1
st
Respondent:
Adv
P Kennedy SC
Adv T Manchu
Instructed
by :
Motsoeneng-Bill Attorneys Inc
For
ABSA:
Adv. G Marcus SC
Instructed
by:
Webber Wentzel Attorneys
For
the Reserve Bank :
Adv K Hofmeyr
Instructed
by:
Werksmans Attorneys
Date
of Judgment:
28 March 2018
[1]
Act 10 of 2013