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 741
|
|
General Council of the Bar of South Africa and Another v Minister of Finance and Others (2023/132695) [2024] ZAGPPHC 741 (2 August 2024)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA)
Case No. 2023/132695
(1)
REPORTABLE:
YES
/NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
YES
/NO
(3)
REVISED
DATE:
2 AUGUST 2024
SIGNATURE:
In
the matter between:
THE
GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE BAR
OF
SOUTH AFRICA
FIRST
APPLICANT
ADVOCATES
FOR TRANSFORMATION
SECOND
APPLICANT
And
THE
MINISTER OF FINANCE
FIRST
RESPONDENT
THE
MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
SECOND
RESPONDENT
THE
SOLICITOR-GENERAL
THIRD
RESPONDENT
Coram:
Millar
J
Heard
on:
30
July 2024
Delivered:
2
August 2024 - This judgment was handed down electronically by
circulation to the parties' representatives by email,
by being
uploaded to the
CaseLines
system of the GD and
by release to SAFLII. The date and time for hand-down is deemed
to be 09H00 on 2 August
2024.
JUDGMENT
MILLAR J
[1]
This is an application for leave to appeal
against a judgment and order handed down on 28 June 2024.
[2]
For convenience I will refer to the parties
as they were in the main application save to note that it is the
respondents who seek
leave to appeal and the applicants who oppose
its grant.
[3]
The
test for granting leave to appeal
The
test for the granting of leave to appeal pertinent to the present
matter is set out in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts
Act
[1]
as follows:
“
(
1)
Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or 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”
[4]
I have considered the grounds upon which
the application has been brought and the reasons given by me in the
judgment for the order
granted. I have also considered the
submissions made by counsel for the granting of leave to appeal on
the part of the respondents
and those opposing the granting of leave
to appeal on behalf of the applicants.
[5]
I am not persuaded that another court would
come to a different conclusion or that there is some other compelling
reason why leave
to appeal should be granted.
[6]
The costs will follow the result.
[7]
In the circumstances, I make the following
order:
[6.1]
The application for leave to appeal is refused with costs which costs
are
to include the costs consequent upon the engagement of 3 counsel
where so engaged.
A MILLAR
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
HEARD
ON:
30 JULY 2024
JUDGMENT DELIVERED
ON:
2 AUGUST 2024
APPEARANCES
COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST
& SECOND
APPLICANTS:
ADV. P LOUW SC
ADV.
N LUTHULI
ADV.
M SALUKAZANA
INSTRUCTED BY:
EDWARD NATHAN
SONNENBERGS INC.
REFERENCE:
MR. A MOOSAJEE
COUNSEL
FOR THE SECOND AND THIRD RESPONDENTS:
ADV. N CASSIM SC
ADV.
L NKOSI-THOMAS SC
ADV.
N NTULI
INSTRUCTED BY:
STATE ATTORNEY,
PRETORIA
REFERENCE:
MR. I CHOWE
NO
APPEARANCE FOR THE FOURTH RESPONDENT
[1]
10
of 2013.