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
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZAGPPHC 663
|
|
Eskom Holdings Soc Limited v Persons Listed in Annexure A to the Notice of Motion and Another v Eskom Holdings Soc Limited (27605/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 663 (12 June 2015)
I
N
THE
COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE NO: 27605/2015
12/6/2015
In
the matter between:
THE
PERSONS LISTED IN ANNEXURE A
TO
THE NOTICE OF MOTION
1st
Applicant
(In
the Application for Leave to Appeal)
NATIONAL
UNION OF METAL WORKERS
2
nd
Applicant
OF
SOUTH AFRICA (NUMSA)
(In
the application for Leave to Appeal) and
ESKOM
HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED
(In
the Application for Leave to
Appeal) Respondent
JUDGMENT
A.C
BASSON. J
[1]
This is an application for leave to appeal against an order and
judgment (including the order as to costs) pursuant to an urgent
application instituted on 5 May 2015.
[2]
The order
was handed down on 15 May 2015.
In
terms of
the order the court granted the respondent's (ESKOM Holdings SOC
Lim
i
ted)
appl
i
cation
for an eviction order against the
individual
respondents
(listed in
Annexure A to the
Notice of
Motion) until such time as the respondent granted them permission to
return.
In doing so
the court was
of the view
that the
Prevention
of
Illegal
Eviction from
and
Unlawful Occupation of Land Act
[1]
("PIE")
is not
applicable to the facts of this particular case. The reasons for this
finding are contained
in
the
judgement
and
I
do
not intend
repeating
what
is
stated
in
the
judgement.
Suffice
to
point out
that
the
court
held that
the
accommodation
premises
provided
for
by
the
respondent
did not
constitute a "home" for the
purpose of
PIE.
[3]
Only the National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa ("NUMSA")
- the second respondent in the main application
- filed a Notice of
Application for Leave to Appeal and a Supplementary Notice of
Application for Leave to Appeal on behalf of
the individual
respondents.
[4]
The test to be applied in applications for leave to appeal is
regulated by section 17(1) of the Supreme Courts Act 10 of 2013:
"17
Leave to appeal
(1)
Leave
to appeal may only be given where the
judge
o
r
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;
(b)
the decision sought on appeal does not fall within the ambit
of section
16
(2) (a); and
(c)
where
the
decision
sought
to
be
appealed
does
not
dispose
of
all
the
issues in the case, the appeal
would lead
to
a
just
and prompt
resolution
of the
real issues between the
parties."
[5]
The test
for
l
eave
to appeal is
twofold:
Firstly, is
there is
reasonable prospect of
the
appeal
succeeding
[2]
and,
secondly,
is
this a
case
of
substantial
importance
not only to the parties, but also to the publ
i
c
at
l
arge?
[3]
[6]
In essence it was submitted on behalf of the applicant that the court
erred in finding that the PIE Act was not applicable the
circumstances of this case. In support of this point the applicant -
in a lengthy argument - submitted that this court ought to
have
interpreted the "home" differently and ought to have done
so in terms of the PIE Act as well as in terms of section
26(3) of
the Constitution. I do not intend repeating all the submissions.
Suffice to point out that I have carefully evaluated
all the
submissions presented to the court. I have also again considered the
submissions that were presented to the court at the
hearing of the
main application. I have also considered the submissions in respect
of the cost order that was granted against the
applicant.
[7]
I am not persuaded that applicant has reasonable prospects and I am
not persuaded that there is a reasonable prospect that another
court
may come to a different conclusion.
[8]
In the event I make the following order:
The
application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
__________________________
AC BASSON
JUDGE
OF
THE
HIGH COURT
[1]
Act
1
9
of
1
998.
[2]
Janit v
Van
den
Heever
NNO (No
2)
2001
(1)
SA 1064
(W)
at 1062F.
[3]
Westinghouse
Brake and Equipment (Pty) Ltd v Bilger Engineering (Pty) Ltd
1986 (2) SA 555
(A) at 560l.