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 873
|
|
Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others v Sibiya (Leave to Appeal) (014981/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 873 (8 August 2024)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE
NO: 014981/2024
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED: YES
Date:
8 August 2024
In
the matter between:
THE
MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS
1
st
Applicant
THE
SECRETARY FOR DEFENCE
2
nd
Applicant
THE
CHIEF OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN
NATIONAL
DEFENCE FORCE
3
rd
Applicant
THE
CHIEF OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN ARMY
4
th
Applicant
CHIEF
HUMAN RESOURCES
5
th
Applicant
ADJUTANT
GENERAL: DEFENCE LEGAL SERVICES
DIVISION
6
th
Applicant
DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, SECRETARIAT OF THE GRIEVANCE
7
th
Applicant
BOARD
and
VUKILE
EZROM SIBIYA
Respondent
LEAVE
TO APPEAL: JUDGEMENT
ALLY
AJ
[1]
This is an application by the Applicants for leave to appeal against
the order and reasons given for such order. Applicants'
Counsel in
argument sought leave to the Full Bench of this Division.
[2]
In this application, the Applicants were represented by Adv. W.
Mokhare SC and Adv. D. Mtsweni.
The Respondent was once again
represented by Adv. H. Scholtz.
[3]
It has now become trite that the test in applications for leave to
appeal has changed to one which
is heightened
[1]
.
The Applicant is accordingly required to convince this Court that
another Court 'would' come to another conclusion.
[4]
I do not deem it necessary to repeat the grounds of appeal in this
judgement save to state that
I have considered all the grounds as
well as the submissions and heads of argument of both parties in this
application.
[5]
As indicated in the written reasons for the Order, the Order is an
interim one and as such I remain
unconvinced that another Court would
come to a different conclusion and as such there are no reasonable
prospects of success nor,
in my considered view, are there any
compelling reasons why leave to appeal ought to be granted.
CONCLUSION
[6]
Accordingly the following Order shall issue:
a).
the application for leave to appeal is dismissed;
b).
the Applicants are to pay the costs of this application, the one
paying the other to be absolved
on scale B.
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG
DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT, PRETORIA
Electronically
submitted therefore unsigned
Delivered:
This judgement 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
hand-down is deemed to be 8 August 2024.
Date
of virtual hearing:
24 July 2024
Date
of reasons for judgment: 8 August 2024
Appearances:
Attorneys
for the Applicants:
STATE
ATTORNEY PRETORIA
NaQongqo@justice.gov.za
Counsel
for the Applicant:
Adv.
W. Mokhare
[with
Adv. D. Mtsweni]
Attorneys
for the Respondent:
GRIEZEL
VAN ZANTEN ATTORNEYS
heidi@gvzinc.co.za
Counsel
for the Respondent:
Adv.
H. Scholtz
[1]
The Mont Chevaux Trust v Tina Goosen 3 November 2014 (unreported
judgement LCC Case No: LCC14R/2014; The Acting National Director
of
Public Prosecution v Democratic Alliance (unreported case no:
19577/09 dated 24 June 2016); First Reality (Pty) Ltd v Mitchell
&
Others
2021 ZALCC 21
dated 23 August 2021 @ para 2