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 921
|
|
Forensic Investigation Risk and Recovery Management (Pty) Ltd v Unemployment Insurance Fund and Others (088430-2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 921 (16 September 2024)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
088430-2024
Heard on: 12 September
2024
Judgment: 16 September
2024
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED.
DATE:
16 SEPTEMBER 2024
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
FORENSIC
INVESTIGATION RISK AND RECOVERY
Applicant
MANAGEMENT (PTY) LTD
And
THE
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
First Respondent
24SIX
CA
Second Respondent
ALTITUDE
BUSINESS ADVISORY
Third Respondent
CHAPU
CA
Fourth Respondent
DITHETO
ACCOUNTANTS
Fifth Respondent
EZEE
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
Sixth Respondent
IZALA
VERIFICATORS
Seventh
Respondent
IZALA
VERIFICATORS CPT
Eighth Respondent
KST
HOLDING
Ninth
Respondent
KULUNGWANA
ACCOUNTANTS
Tenth Respondent
LEBONE
LA AFRICA CONSULTANTS
Eleventh
Respondent
LEOLO
AND PARTNERS CHARTERED
ACCOUNTANTS
Twelfth
Respondent
MAINE
MANAGEMENT AND CHARTERED
ACCOUNTANTS
Thirteenth Respondent
MKWANAZI
INVESTMENTS
Fourteenth Respondent
MNB
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
Fifteenth Respondent
MOROBI
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
Sixteenth Respondent
NAMBE
FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS
Seventeenth Respondent
NDEMEX
CONSULTING
Eighteenth Respondent
NKS
CASA
Nineteenth Respondent
OMC
CONSULTING
Twentieth Respondent
RSND
CONSULTING PROFESSIONALS
Twenty-First Respondent
SAMBA
SOLUTIONS
Twenty-Second Respondent
SIMDAR
CONSULTING
Twenty-Third Respondent
SONDLO
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
Twenty-Fourth Respondent
SVZ
CONSULTING
Twenty-Fifth Respondent
THABI
CONSULTING
Twenty-Sixth
Respondent
THE
ACCOUNTING VILLAGE
Twenty-Seventh Respondent
UBUNTU
BUSINESS ADVISORY AND
CONSULTING
(Listed
as UBAC FORENSICS on CIPC)
Twenty-Eighth
Respondent
THE
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
Twenty-Ninth Respondent
This judgment was
prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected and is
handed 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 is deemed to be 16
September 2024.
JUDGMENT
STRIJDOM J
[1]
In this matter the first and twenty-third respondent seek leave to
appeal to the Supreme Court
of Appeal, alternatively to the Full
Court of the Gauteng Division, against the whole of my judgment and
costs order handed down
on 20 August 2024 in the Urgent Court.
[2]
The application for leave to appeal is opposed by the applicant in
the main application.
[3]
The grounds of appeal in respect of the first and twenty-third
respondents are set out in the
respective applications for leave to
appeal. I do not intend to repeat same.
[1]
[4]
Applications for leave to appeal are governed by sections 16 and 17
of the Superior Courts Act,
10 of 2013 (the Act). Section 17 makes
provision for leave to be granted where the presiding judge or judges
concerned are of the
opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable
prospect of success, or if there is some compelling reason why the
appeal should
be heard including conflicting judgments on the matter
under consideration.
[5]
With the enactment of section 17 of the Act, the test has now
obtained statutory force and is
to be applied using the word “would”
in deciding whether to grant leave. In other words, the test is:
“Would
another Court come to a different decision.”
[6]
Each application for leave to appeal must be decided on its own
facts. Some examples of what will
be regarded as compelling reasons
have been identified. They include:
(a)
The substantial importance of the case to the applicant or to both
the applicant and respondent;
(b)
The decision sought to be appealed against involves an important
question of law;
(c)
The administration of justice either generally or if the particular
case concerned requires the
appeal to be heard; and
(d)
An issue of public importance which will have an effect on future
matters.
[7]
It is trite that appellants need to convince the Court on proper
grounds that they have prospects
of success on appeal. Those
prospects of success must not be remote, but there must exist a
reasonable chance of succeeding.
[8]
Having considered all the grounds of appeal raised by the first and
twenty-third respondents as
well as the facts and the law as
presented by the parties, I am of the view that the appeal has
reasonable prospects of success.
[9]
When the facts and the law were examined, there is in my view also a
sound and rational basis
for the conclusion that there are compelling
reasons why the appeal should be heard. This matter is of substantial
importance to
both the applicant and the respondents and would raise
important constitutional issues and questions of law.
[10] In
the result, the following order is made:
1.
Leave to appeal is granted to the first and twenty-third respondents
to the Supreme Court
of Appeal.
2.
Costs will be costs in the appeal.
STRIJDOM J.J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
Appearances:
For
the Applicant in the main application:
Adv
A Granova
Instructed
by:
V
Chetty Inc
For
the First Respondent:
Adv
E Van As
Instructed
by:
The
State Attorney
For
the Twenty-Third Respondent:
Mr
N.P Voyi
Instructed
by:
Voyi
Inc Attorneys
[1]
Caseline:
031 – 1 to 031 – 13 First respondent’s grounds of
appeal 031 -1 to 030 – 14.