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
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAGPPHC 452
|
|
Beyond Forensics (Pty) Ltd v National Commissioner, South African Police Service and Others (Leave to Appeal) (2023-046691) [2024] ZAGPPHC 452 (17 May 2024)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA)
Case
Number: 2023-046691
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO.
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO.
(3)
REVISED.
DATE:
2024-05-17
SIGNATURE
In
the matter between:
BEYOND
FORENSICS (PTY)
LTD
Applicant
and
THE
NATIONAL COMMISSIONER, SOUTH
AFRICAN
POLICE
SERVICE
First Respondent
THE
DEPUTY NATIONAL COMMISSIONER OF SUPPORT
SERVICES
OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE
Second Respondent
THE
ACTING SECTION HEAD OF PROCUREMENT
MANAGEMENT
OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE
Third
Respondent
THE
BID EVALUATION COMMITTEE OF THE SOUTH
AFRICAN
POLICE
SERVICE
Fourth Respondent
THE
BID ADJUDICATION COMMITTEE OF THE SOUTH
AFRICAN
POLICE
SERVICE
Fifth Respondent
ECM
GROUP (PTY) LTD T/A ECM TECHNOLOGIES
Sixth Respondent
ACINO
FORENSICS (PTY) LTD
Seventh Respondent
This
judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is
reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to
the
Parties/their legal representatives by email and by uploading it to
the electronic file of this matter on CaseLines.
The date for
handing down is deemed to be 17 May 2024.
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
POTTERILL
J
[1]
I read the arguments before Tolmay J, the judgment, the applicant’s
leave to
appeal and the written heads submitted pertaining to the
application for leave. I have also listened to argument.
[2]
In terms of
s17
of the
Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
leave to appeal
may only be given where a Judge is of the opinion that the appeal
would have a reasonable prospect of success,
or there is some other
compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
[3]
There is no compelling reason why the appeal should be heard; I
find no important
points of law that warrant a consideration by a
higher court.
[4]
I am also unpersuaded that the appeal would have a reasonable
prospect of success.
[5]
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs,
including the costs of
two counsel if so employed. Costs
pertaining to work done after 1 April 2024 are awarded on scale C.
S.
POTTERILL
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
CASE NO:
2023/046691
HEARD ON:
16 May 2024
FOR THE APPLICANT:
ADV.
S. GROBLER SC AND ADV. P. VOLMINK
INSTRUCTED BY:
Dirk Kotze
Attorneys c/o Alant, Gell & Martin Inc.
FOR THE 1
ST
TO 5
TH
RESPONDENTS:
ADV. Z.Z. MATEBESE
SC AND ADV. V. PILLAY
INSTRUCTED BY:
The State Attorney
FOR THE 6
TH
RESPONDENT:
ADV. C.M. RIP AND
ADV. M. DU PLESSIS
INSTRUCTED BY:
Thompson
Attorneys c/o Hack, Stupel & Ross Attorneys
FOR THE 7
TH
RESPONDENT:
ADV.
R. MOULTRIE SC AND ADV. M.Z. GWALA
INSTRUCTED BY:
Webber Wentzel
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
17 May 2024