REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED:
26 March 2025
DATE SIGNATURE 1
CASE NO: 081565/2023
In the matter between:
SMADA SECURITY SERVICES (PTY) LTD
and
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND
CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
JUDGMENT Appellant/ Applicant
Respondent
2
{The matter was heard in open court and judgment was reserved. A written
judgment was uploaded onto the electronic file of the matter on Caselines and
the date of uploading thereof onto Caselines is deemed to be the date of the
judgment)
BEFORE: HOLLAND-MUTER J:
(1) The issue of when leave to appeal be granted by a judge in the court a quo
is governed by the provisions of Section 17 of the Supreme Court Act, 10 of
2013. Section 17{1)(a)(i) stipulates that the court may only grant leave to
appeal if the court is of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable
prospect of success. The word "only11 used in this subsection raised the bar of
the test that now applied to the merits indicating a certain measure of
certainty that another court will differ from the court a quo.
[2] Subsection 17{1)(a){ii) stipulates that a court may grant leave to appeal if
there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
(3] It was argued on behalf of the appellant that leave should be granted
because there is a reasonable prospect of success taken into consideration that
the facts most likely support such prospect. It was argued that the respondent
made a clear 'mistake11 when considering the two tenders received. It was
argued that the respondent should have considered the hard copy of the
tenders which would indicate that the respondent should have realised that
the electronic tender was incomplete regarding the sector tendered for and
the different prices between sector A & Bin the tenders. The court was of the
view that this was not a mistake but another court may decide the opposite.
[4] Counsel for the appellant further submitted that in view of the rather large
difference in pricing between sector A & B, the losses suffered by the appellant
3
may result in the business to be liquidated and that a large number of
employees may lose their work. This, he argued, constitutes other compelling
circumstances why the appeal should be granted.
[S] Taken into consideration all the facts and the arguments raised, I am of the
view that there are reasonable prospect of success and compelling
circumstances to grant leave to appeal.
[6] After consideration leave to appeal against the judgment is granted to the
Supreme Court of Appeal.
ORDER:
1. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal in granted.
2. Costs of the application is costs in the appeal.
Application wa~ heard on 25 March 2025. Judge of the Pretoria High Court
26 March 2025
Judgment was handed down by uploading onto Caselines on 26 March 2025.
Appearances:
Appellant/Applicant: Adv A PJ ELS SC
Respondent: Adv Ramawele SC 4