Page | 2
DIRECTOR GENERAL FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND
LABOUR Third Respondent/Defendant
SOMNIPOINT (PTY) LTD (In Liquidation) Fourth respondent / First-third
Party
MURRAY CLOETE, N.O. Second Respondent /Second -
third Party
MAHLANGU KHATHAZILE SIMON, N.O. Third Respondent / Third -third
Party
This judgment has been handed down remotely and shall be circulated to the parties by
way of email / uploading on Caselines. The date of hand down shall be deemed to be 26
March 2025.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
________________________________________________________________
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
2. The defendants are ordered to pay the plaintiffs’ costs on scale C, such costs
to include the costs of two counsel.
_____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
________________________________________________________________
BAM J
Introduction
Page | 3
1. This is an opposed application for leave to appeal the judgment and order of
this court of 23 December 2024. That order struck out the defendants ’ defence
in the underlying action. The defendants contend in their notice of application
for leave to appeal that this court erred in various respects. They suggest that
they have prospects of success and another court would come to a different
finding. Notably, the defendants do not contend that there are any compelling
reasons as to why leave to appeal should be granted.
2. The thrust of the plaintiffs’ opposition is that, having considered the
circumstances of this case, this court, in reaching its decision, exercised a
discretion. They submit that the instances in which an appellate court will
interfere with a lower court’s exercise of its discretion are limited. Citing, inter
alia, Giddey NO v JC Barnard and Partners , they submit that an appellate
court will not consider ‘ whether the decision reached by the court of first
instance was correct,
‘but will only interfere in limited circumstances; for example, if it is shown that the
discretion has not been exercised judicially or has been exercised based on a
wrong appreciation of the facts or wrong principles of law. Even where the
discretion is not a discretion in the strict sense, there may still be considerations
which would result in an appellate court only interfering in the exercise of such a
discretion in the limited circumstances mentioned above.1’
3. The plaintiffs add, given that the defendants do not assert that this court did
not exercise its discretion judiciously and/or that the discretion was based on
1 (CCT65/05) [2006] ZACC 13; 2007 (5) SA 525 (CC); 2007 (2) BCLR 125 (CC) (1 September 2006) ,
paragraph 19.
Page | 4
a wrong appreciation of the facts or wrong principle of law, the application
should be dismissed for lack of merit.
4. I begin by setting out the law governing applications for leave to appeal
followed by the law dealing with the principle of appellate restraint. I thereafter
consider the defendants ’ grounds of appeal by following the different themes
in their notice of application for leave to appeal.
Leave to appeal: Applicable legal principles
5. Applications for leave to appeal are governed by section 17 of the Superior
Courts Act2. The relevant parts of the provision read:
‘17. Leave to appeal
(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; ’
6. In Ramakatsa and Others v African National Congress and Another , the
threshold for granting leave to appeal was articulated thus:
‘Turning the focus to the relevant provisions of the Superior Courts Act (the SC
Act), leave to appeal may only be granted where the judges concerned are of the
opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or there are
compelling reasons which exist why the appeal should be heard such as the
2 Act 10 of 2013 .
Page | 5
interests of justice. This Court in Caratco, concerning the provisions of s 17(1)(a)(ii)
of the SC Act pointed out that if the court is unpersuaded that there are prospects
of success, it must still enquire into whether there is a compelling reason to
entertain the appeal.’3
7. The Supreme Court of Appeal has frowned at the regularity with which leave
to appeal is granted to that court. In Mothuloe Incorporated Attorneys v Law
Society of the Northern Province and Another , it said:
‘The test is simply whether there are any reasonable prospects of success in an
appeal. It is not whether a litigant has an arguable case or a mere possibility of
success…This court has in the past bemoaned the regularity with which leave is
granted to this court in respect of matters not deserving its attention. This is one
case where leave to appeal should have been refused for lack of reasonable
prospects of success. ’4
8. Turning now to the legal principles governing appellate restraint. In Minister of
International Relations and Co-operation and Others v Simeka Group (Pty)
Ltd and Others , it was said:
‘[89] [T]he the power of an appellate court to interfere with the exercise of such a
discretion [discretions in the strict sense] is circumscribed. The ambit of this power
was described by the Constitutional Court in Biowatch Trust v Registrar Genetic
Resources and Others thus:
'the ordinary rule is that the approach of an appellate court to an appeal against
the exercise of a discretion by another court will depend upon the nature of the
discretion concerned. Thus where the discretion contemplates that the Court
may choose from a range of options, the discretion would be a discretion in the
strict sense ...
"[T]he ordinary approach on appeal to the exercise of a discretion in the strict
sense is that the appellate court will not consider whether the decision reached
by the court at first instance was correct, but will only interfere in limited
3 (724/2019) [2021] ZASCA 31 (31 March 2021), paragraph 10.
4 (213/16) [2017] ZASCA 17 (22 March 2017), paragraph 18.
Page | 6
circumstances; for example, if it is shown that the discretion has not been
exercised judicially or has been exercised based on a wrong appreciation of the
facts or wrong principles of law. Even where the discretion is not a discretion in
the strict sense, there may still be considerations which would result in an
appellate court only interfering in the exercise of such a discretion in the limited
circumstances mentioned above. The rationale for this principle is, as Cloete J
aptly observed, that a narrow discretion 'requires in essence the exercise of a
value judgment and there may well be a legitimate difference of opinion as to
the appropriate conclusion ”…’5
9. Distinguishing between a discretion in the strict and loose sense, the
Constitutional Court in Trencon Construction (Pty) Limited v Industrial
Development Corporation of South Africa Limited and Another , noted:
'[85] A discretion in the true sense is found where the lower court has a wide range
of equally permissible options available to it. This type of discretion has been found
by this Court in many instances, including matters of costs, damages and in the
award of a remedy in terms of section 35 of the Restitution of Land Rights Act. It is
“true” in that the lower court has an election of which option it will apply and any
option can never be said to be wrong as each is entirely permissible.
[86] In contrast, where a court has a discretion in the loose sense, it does not
necessarily have a choice between equally permissible options. Instead, as
described in Knox, a discretion in the loose sense—
“means no more than that the court is entitled to have regard to a number of
disparate and incommensurable features in coming to a decision.
...
[88] …An appellate court ought to be slow to substitute its own decision solely
because it does not agree with the permissible option chosen by the lower court.’6
5 (610/2021) [2023] ZASCA, paragraphs 89; The Special Investigating Unit v Phomella Property Investments
(Pty) Ltd and Another (Case no 1329/2021) [2023] ZASCA 45, (3 April 2023) , paragraph 11.
6 [2015] ZACC 22.
Page | 7
Defendants ’ grounds
(i) The court erred in finding that the defendants failed to comply with the Rule
35(3) notice and thus the court order
10. The defendants submit that upon reading their first supplementary discovery
affidavit, (supplementary affidavit) it is clear that they complied with the
plaintiff’s rule 35(3) notice; that a reading of paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of their
supplementary affidavit together with their notice in terms of Rule 35(6)
demonstrates compliance with the notice and the court order; and, contrary to
the finding of this court in paragraph 44 of its judgment, the 210 documents
listed in the First Schedule of their supplementary affidavit fall within the class
of documents specifically set out in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the plaintiff’s
notice.
11. It is patently clear that the defendants ’ supplementary affidavit avoids
addressing the various classes of documents sought in the notice. The
judgment addresses the points raised by the defendants in this regard, along
with the reasons for its conclusion. No point will be served by repeating the
judgment. The contentions are without merit and there is no prospect that
another court would come to a different finding.
(ii) The court erred in finding that the defendants had disregarded the rules of
court and intentionally defied the court order.
12. The contention here is that if the defendants were incorrect in their assertion
that they had complied with the notice and thus the court order, that is in and
of itself an error of law which does not equate to wilful disregard for the court.
Page | 8
The conclusion whether the defendants had either failed or succeeded in
complying with their discovery obligations is an issue steeped in fact. Those
facts are dealt with in the judgment. The contention lacks merit.
(iii) The court erred in failing to place sufficient weight on the defence raised in
terms of section 217 of the Constitution. (iv) The court erred in finding that the
principle in Gefen and Another v De Wet and Another is only applicable to eviction
matters.
13. I address these two points in turn. In the first instance, the defendants submit
that the court should have accepted that the pleadings could still be amended.
On this basis, the court was not confined to the pleadings as they stood. The
claim made by the defendants in this regard is that there is no evidence before
the court that the lease between Somni and the UIF was concluded following
a competitive bidding process as mandated by Section 217 of the
Constitution. Should this defence be struck out, it would result in significant
loss to the fiscus in the form of irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure.
14. The judgment addresses this point, adequately, I submit, and distinguishes
the circumstances of this case from those of Gobela and Kunene Rampala .
Simply, there was and still is no defence regarding the speculation regarding
non-compliance with Section 217 of the Constitution. Likewise, the court
distinguishes in its judgment the responsibility entrusted with courts when
entertaining matters pertaining to the PIE Act, as set out in Gefen and Another
v De Wet and Another , as opposed to what I would call, non-PIE matters, such
as the application brought by the plaintiffs. It serves no purpose to regurgitate
Page | 9
the reasoning of the court in this regard. There is no merit to these grounds
and no prospect that another court would come to a different finding.
(v) The court erred in its reckoning of the various time periods when considering
the defendants ’delays
15. The defendants deny that they took 19 months to pursue their third-party
proceedings, claiming that the correct period was about 7 months . They
further deny that it took them 7 months to file their answering papers in the
application to strike out asserting that the delay was 7 weeks. There is a lot
more involved in this court’s reasoning of the defendants ’ delay and the
manner they had conducted themselves before this court. That conduct
includes common cause facts and propagating falsehoods. There is simply no
merit to this ground and no prospect that another court will come to a different
finding.
(vi) The court failed to place sufficient weight on the UIFs section 34 rights and
placed undue reliance on an incorrect finding that the UIF disrespected the
fundamentals of the litigation system
16. The defendants submit that the UIF had demonstrated why it asserts it has
complied with its discovery obligations. In the event it was wrong, that is as
result of an error of law which is not sufficient to deprive the UIF of its right to
a fair trial. I have already dealt with the fallacy pertaining to the error of law
elsewhere in this judgment. Rule 35(7) makes provision for the dismissal of a
party ’s claim or the striking out of its defence in the event of failure to comply
with the rule. This is the very basis of the order issued by this court on 2
Page | 10
February 2022. There was and still is no specific challenge to the rule nor to
the order on the basis of unconstitutionality. In any event, the defendants were
afforded a fair public hearing, with all the defendants represented by Senior
and Junior counsel, both of whom stand in the position of custodians of the
UIF’s section 34 rights. And, as set out in the Constitutional Court case of
Lane and Fey NNO v Dabelstein , the right guaranteed in section 34 of the
Constitution:
‘does not and could hardly ensure that litigants are protected against wrong
decisions. On the assumption that section 34 of the Constitution does indeed
embrace that right, it would be the fairness and not the correctness of the court
proceedings to which litigants would be entitled.’7
17. For these reasons, there is no merit to this ground and no prospect that
another court would come to a different finding.
(vii) The court erred in placing undue reliance on the common case fact that the
UIF had made rental payments to Vantage, a third party at the time to the UIF
18. The defendants submit that this court erred in placing undue reliance on this
issue. The point is made that if indeed the Facilities Agreement, the Cession
and the payments made to Vantage are unlawful for contravening section 217
of the Constitution, Vantage cannot rely on estoppel to make legal what would
otherwise be illegal. The judgment sets out the context for this reliance and
the defendants ’ utter disregard for their statutory obligations. There is simply
no merit to this ground and no prospect that another court would come to a
different conclusion.
7 (CCT 60/00) [2001] ZACC 14; 2001 (2) SA 1187 (CC); 2001 (4) BCLR 312 (6 March 2001), paragraph 4.
Page | 11
(viii) The court erred in awarding costs to the plaintiffs
19. The context in which costs were awarded to the plaintiffs is fully set out in the
judgment. None of the conclusions reached in the judgment are disturbed by
the grounds raised in the defendants ’ notice of appeal. Costs are a matter for
the court in the exercise of its discretion. In view of there being no attack
grounded on the issues a court of appeal would take into account when
interrogating the manner in which a court of first instance exercised its
discretion, there is no likelihood that another court would come to a different
finding on this issue.
Conclusion
20. For all the reasons set out in this ruling, the defendants ’ application for leave
to appeal must fail.
Order
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
2. The defendants are ordered to pay the plaintiffs ’costs on scale C, such costs
to include the costs of two counsel.
_____
BAM J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT,
GAUTENG DIVIS ION,
PRETORIA
Page | 12
Date of Hearing : 18 February 2025
Date of Judgment: 26 March 2025
Appearances:
Counsel for the Applicant s: Adv G.W Amm SC, with him Adv S.G
Dos Santos
Instructed by: Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr Inc
c/o Macrobert Attorneys
Brooklyn, Pretoria
Counsel for the Respondents: Adv W Mokhare SC, with him Adv T
Mabuda
Instructed by: The State Attorney
Pretoria