1

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

CASE NO: 2024 / 066460



1. REPORTABLE: NO
2. OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
3. REVISED: NO

DATE:01 August 2025

SIGNATURE OF JUDGE:



In the matter between:

THE SOUTH AFRICAN PROFESSIONAL FIREARM
TRAINERS COUNCIL NPO First Applicant

INTERNATIONAL FIREARMS TRAINING ACADEMY
(PTY) LTD (K2020/241569/07) (PREVIOUSLY
INTERNATIONAL FIREARM TRAINING ACADEMY CC) Second Applicant


and


THE QUALITY COUNCIL FOR TRADES
AND OCCUPATIONS First Respondent

THE SAFETY AND SECURITY SECTORAL
EDUCATION TRAINING AUTHORITY Second Respondent

THE SOUTH AFRICAN QUALIFICATIONS
AUTHORITY Third Respondent

2

THE MINISTER OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND
TRAINING Fourth Respondent



JUDGMENT



FLATELA J

Introduction

[1] This is an op posed applic ation to intervene . The Applicant, International
Firearms Training Academy (Pty) Ltd (formerly International Firearms Training
Academy CC) (IFTA”), seeks to be joined or to intervene as Second Applicant in the
main application brought by the First Applicant. The intervening Applicant claims that
it has a direct and substantial interest in the dispute pending between the First
Applicant and the Respondents.

[2] Relief is sought in Part A of the notice of motion, which reads as follows:

2. That an order be granted by the above Honourable Court joining the Applicant in this
matter as Second Applicant.

3. That the Founding Affidavit attached hereto shall constitute the Founding Affidavit of
the Second Applicant in the main application.

5. That the Applicant be permitted to file a supplementary founding affidavit in the event
that Part A is granted for the review set out in Part B hereto.”

[3] In Part B of the application, the Applicant seeks the following relief:

“6. For an order reviewing and setting aside the decision of the Fourth Respondent, the
Minister of Higher Education and Training dated the 3 rd June 2024, alternatively , the
5th of June 2024, not to extend qualification 50480 pending finalisation of, alternatively,
the publication of an alternate realigned qualification for qualification 50480.

7. For an order in the event that such review is successful, that the Fourth Respondent
pay the costs of such review application; and

3


8. For an order reviewing and setting aside the decision of the First Respondent,
communicated to First Applicant on 13 June 2024, to delegate the assurance function
for qualification 50480 to the Second Respondent.

9. Further and/or alternative relief.”


[4] Only the First to the Third Respondents oppose this application. Although the
Minister initially opposed this application, the counsel representing the Minister
informed the Court that no submissions would be made on behalf of the Minister.

[5] The First to the Third Respondents object to the intervention on three main
grounds:

i. First, the intervening Applicant has failed to de monstrate any
direct and substantial interest warranting their joinder in the main
application.
ii. Secondly, the joinder application constituted an abuse of process
because the intervening Applicant and the First Applicant
advanced different cases.
iii. Thirdly, no case is made out for the relief sought in Part B of the
Application.

[6] I will begin by outlining the relevant parties involved. I will address the legal
principles governing the application to intervene. Finally, I will analyse the pertinent
facts and their legal implications, relying on the Applicant and the potential outcomes
of this application.

The Parties

[7] The First Applicant is the South African Professional Firearm Trainers Council
(“SAPFTC”), a registered non-profit company and the professional body envisaged in
the National Qualification Framework Act 67 of 2008 (“NQF Act”). According to the
SAPFTC, it was established in 2012 with the aim of being recognised as a professional
body to quality assure firearm training from the private sector.

4


[8] The intervening Applicant is International Firearms Training Academy (Pty) Ltd
(formerly International Firearm Training Academy CC) (IFTA). The Applicant is
registered as a training provider with the First Applicant.

[9] The First Respondent is the Quality Council for Trades and Occupations
(“QCTO”), a statutory body responsible for regulating trades and occupations. It was
established in 2020 in terms of the Skills Development Act (Act 97 of 1998The QCTO
is responsible for establishing and maintaining occupational standards and
qualifications, ensuring their quality, and submitting them to SAQA for registration on
the National Qualifications Framework (NQF). While the QCTO does not directly
provide training or oversee the quality control and monitoring of training providers, it
may delegate some of its quality assurance powers to a SETA or a professional body.

[10] The Second Respondent is the Safety and Security Sectoral Education Training
Authority (SASSETA), established on July 1, 2005, under the Skills Development Act
97 of 1998. SASSETA was established by merging several existing SETAs, including
Poslec SETA. On July 22, 2019, all SETAs, including SASSETA, were re-established,
expanding SASSETA's jurisdiction to include SIC codes for Legal Activities,
Investigation and Security Activities, Policing, Correctional Services, and Justice.
SASSETA is responsible for quality assurance of training in the security sector.


[11] Third Respondent is the South African Qualifications Authority (“SAQA”), the
statutory body established by the SAQA Act, and re -established by section 10 of the
NQF Act. SAQA’s objects, in terms of section 11 of the SAQA Act, are to advance the
objects of the NQF, oversee the further development of the NQF and coordinate the
sub-frameworks.

[12] The Fourth Respondent is the Minister of Higher Education and Training (“the
Minister”). In terms of section 8 of the NQF Act, the Minister of Higher Education and

Minister”). In terms of section 8 of the NQF Act, the Minister of Higher Education and
Training (“Minister”) has the overall responsibility for the NQF, the SAQA, and the
quality councils, including the QCTO. The Minister must establish policy on NQF
matters and issue guidelines outlining the government’s strategy and priorities for the

5

NQF. Importantly, under section 8(2)(e), the Minister is also required to determine the
sub-frameworks specified in the NQF Act.

[13] The QCTO delegated the authority to monitor and ensure the training in respect
of the qualification to the SAPFTC in 2013. The First Applicant was granted the training
qualification 50480 in May 2013 for 10 years, expiring on June 30, 2023. It has been
quality-assuring prescribed firearm training since 2013.


Factual Background

[14] The controversy in the main application pertains to Qualification ID 50480,
designated as the “Further Education and Training Certificate: Firearm Training. This
is the qualification for the required firearm training to obtain a competency certificate.

[15] This application is one of many brought before this Court in a lengthy legal
dispute between the First Applicant and the Respondents concerning the right of the
Applicant to continue quality assurance of the qualification pending the review of two
decisions of the QCTO, namely:

a. A decision of the QCTO not to consider PFT’s realigned qualification for
50480
b. The decision of the QCTO to delegate the qualification to SASSETA
communicated to the Applicant on 13 June 2024.

Historical Context

[16] The background has been discussed in various judgments of this Court. For
context, a historical overview and the role played by the respondents are warranted.

[17] Overall responsibility for the quality assurance of all occupational training and
quality assurance vests in the QCTO. The QCTO may, however, delegate some of its
powers related to quality assurance to a SETA or a professional body, as it is not

6

directly involved in the provision of training or quality control and monitoring of training
providers.

[18] On 5 April 2013, the QCTO withdrew the delegation of qualification 5048 from
SASSETA and delegated that qualification, consisting of a number of unit standards,
to the First Applicant. The First Applicant was granted the training qualification 50480
in May 2013 for 10 years, expiring on 30 June 2023.

[19] The delegation is as follows:

“This delegation commences on 1 April 2013 and expires once a qualification
listed is reviewed and replaced by a qualification developed and registered on
the Occupational Qualifications Framework (OQF) or until the qualification
reaches its registration an d the date and teach -out periods, or when the
qualification is withdrawn by the QCTO.”

[20] The First Applicant has served as a quality assurer for qualification 50480 since
2013.

[21] The qualification of 50480, along with its associated unit standards, was
approved by the Quality Council for Trades and Occupations (QCTO) and SAQA in
2009. It is classified as a historical qualification, as it existed before 2009 under the
SAQA Act of 1995.

[22] In 2018, the First Applicant concluded a memorandum of understanding with
the QCTO , wherein the QCTO mandated the First Applicant to complete the
realignment of qualification 50480. According to the First Applicant, it submitted a
realigned qualification in 2018. The First Applicant asserts that it was requested to
rewrite the qualification using a recognised qualification development facilitator, whom
the First Respondent recognises as a professional body qualified to write realigned
qualifications in accordance with current requirements.


[23] The First Applicant submitted its application for a realigned qualification on 9
May 2023. In 2020, the Minister issued directives regarding the realignment of the

7

qualifications, with the process of updating them to be completed by July 2023. The
date was extended. The Fourth Respondent extended the validity period of the
qualification to 30 June 2024.

2020 Determination by the Minister

[24] On 24 December 2020, the Minister published the Determination of the Sub -
frameworks that Comprise the National Qualifications Framework in terms of section
8(2)(e) of the NQF Act (“the 2020 Determination”). The Minister outlined the following
implementation and transitional arrangements regarding pre -2009 qualifications and
unit standards registered on the Occupational Qualifications Sub -Framework
(“OQSF”):

“Pre 2009 Qualifications (Under the SAQA Act, 1995)

The registration end date for pre-2009 qualifications and unit standards
registered on the OQSF shall be 30 June 2023.

The last date of first-time learners enrolling for pre-2009 qualifications and unit
standards registered on the OQSF shall be 30 June 2024.

The last date of achievement for learners enrolled for pre -2009 qualifications
and unit standards on the OQSF shall be 30 June 2027.”


2021 Removal of the First Applicants of Delegation

[25] According to the Applicant, in 2021, without notice or consultation, the QCTO
informed the First Applicant that its delegation had been removed or cancelled, and
the QCTO and SASSETA had concluded a Memorandum of Understanding to
delegate the quality assurance functions of the qualification 50480 to SASSETA. The
First Applicant was required to communicate and collaborate with SASSETA to
provide it with the database and providers. However, the First Applicant refused to

8

engage with SASSETA. As a result, the First Applicant filed an urgent application in
court, which led to a court order by agreement in the following terms:

1. It is declared that the delegated mandate of the Applicant
as set out on 1 April 2013, in respect of qualification 50480,
remains valid and in force.
2. It is noted that the First Respondent agrees to comply with
the provisions of the delegation agreement of the 1st of
April 2023, and or until expiry of the qualification listed is
reviewed and replaced by a qualification developed and
registered on the Occupational Qualifications Framework
(OQF).
3. No order is made in respect of costs


The 2024 Minister ’s Directive regarding the implementation of transitional
arrangements

[26] On 3 June 2024, the former Minister of Education, Dr Blade Nzimande,
published a notice in the Government Gazette no.50742 titled “Directive on the
Implementation of Transitional Arrangements for Pre -2009 Qualifications “. The
directives stated the following in paragraph 1.5

“b) the latest date of first -time learners enrolling for pre-2009
qualifications and unit standards registered on the OQFS shall be 30
June 2024.
c) The latest date of achievement (that is, completion of qualification) for
learners enrolled for pre -2009 qualifications and unit standards
registered on OQSF shall be 30 June 2027.

5.6 “ The pre -2009-unit standards that have been used for regulatory
programmes will continue to be recognised provided that they are
realigned through the QCTO as occupational skills programmes to
replace the regulated unit standards”

9


[27] The list of qualifications was published on Thursday , 6 June 2024, and
Qualification 50480 was not included in the list.

[28] On 13 June 2024, the first applicant applied to the fourth respondent, as
outlined in the Government Gazette published on 3 June 2024, seeking an extension
of the validity period of their qualification while the application for the realigned
qualification, submitted in May 2023, was still under consideration. Mr Lata responded
to the letter and advised the First Applicant to direct their query to the CEO of QCTO.
On the same day, the first respondent stated that the old training had been assigned
to the SET A and the second respondent. Importantly, Mr Lata indicated that from 1
July 2024, there would no longer be a delegated partner for the qualification.

[29] On 11 July 2024, the First Applicant and the intervening party approached the
Court on an urgent basis for relief sought in their respective notices of motion.

[30] The relief claimed in Part A is outlined as follows:

Part A
a. That the application be heard urgently and that the court dispense
with the forms and rules relating to service in terms of the provisions
of rule 6(12).

b. That it be declared that the Applicant retains and has authority over
the mandate for qualification 50480 and that it be declared to be valid
pending the finalisation of Part B of this application.

c. Alternatively, to prayer 2 and until the said qualification is replaced
by a qualification registered on the Occupational Qualifications
Framework as foreseen in the order granted on the 26 th of October
2021, attached as Annexure “NOM1”, pending the finalisation of Part
B of this application.

10

d. That the First Respondent be ordered to pay the costs of this part of
the application on scale C and in the event of opposition of this part
by any other Respondent, that such costs be paid jointly and
severally by such Respondents opposing, the one paying the other
to be absolved on scale C.

e. Further and / or alternative relief.


Part B

f. That Applicant’s application dated the 19 th of May 2023, that its
realigned replacement qualification for qualification 50480 submitted
to the First Respondent, be deemed to be refused.

g. For an order reviewing and setting aside that deemed refusal.

h. That the realigned qualification submitted by the Applicant on 19 May
2023 as the new qualification to replace 50480, be deemed to be the
appropriate replacement qualification for qualification 50480.

i. That the First and/or Third Respondents jointly and severally be
ordered to register the realigned qualification on the Occupational
Qualifications Framework.

j. For an order declaring that the Applicant is the appointed quality
assurer for the realigned qualification substituted for qualification
50480.

k. Alternatively, to prayers 8, 9 and 10 that the First and Second
Respondents be ordered to make a decision on whether to accept
Applicant’s realigned qualification submitted on the 19th May 2023 as
the replacement for qualification 50480 within 30 (thirty) days from
date hereof.

11

l. In the event that the First Respondent refuses the Applicant’s
application that its realigned qualification be the substitute for
qualification 50480 subsequent to the service of these court papers,
for an order permitting Applicant to supplement these pap ers within
15 (fifteen) days of such decision and thereafter reviewing and setting
aside such refusal and for an order that the Applicant’s realigned
qualification submitted on the 19th of May 2023 be declared to be the
replacement qualification for qualification 50480;

m. That First Respondent pay the costs of this application on scale C
and in the event of opposition by any other Respondent, that the
costs of this application be paid on scale C by those Respondents
opposing the relief, jointly and severally the one paying the other to
be absolved.

n. Further and/or alternative relief.

[31] The intervening Applicant sought the following relief : Part A of the notice of
motion reads as follows:
1. That this application be had urgently and that the court
dispenses with the forms and rules relating to service in
terms of the provisions of rule 6 (2)
2. That an order be granted by the above Honourable Court joining
the Applicant in this matter as Second Applicant.
3. That the Founding Affidavit attached hereto shall constitute the
Founding Affidavit of the Second Applicant in the main
application.
4. That an interim order be granted by the above Honourable court
extending qualification for 50480 in terms of the court order
dated 28 October 202 1 under case number 50593/2021 valid
and in place until such qualification is replaced by a qualification
developed and re placed by a qualification developed and
registered on the Occupational Qualification Framework for
firearms training for the unit standards and curriculum covered

12

by qualification 50480 or until review is set out in Part B of this
application is finalised
5. That the Applicant be permitted to file a supplementary founding
affidavit in the event that Part A is granted for the review set out
in Part B hereto.”

[32] In Part B of the application, the Applicant seeks the following relief:

“6. For an order reviewing and setting aside the decision of the Fourth
Respondent, the Minister of Higher Education and Training dated the 3 rd June
2024, alternatively, the 5th of June 2024, not to extend qualification 50480
pending finalisation of, alternatively, the publication of an alternate realigned
qualification for qualification 50480.

7. For an order in the event that such review is successful, that the Fourth
Respondent pay the costs of such review application; and

8. For an order reviewing and setting aside the decision of the First Respondent,
communicated to First Applicant on 13 June 2024, to delegate the assurance
function for qualification 50480 to the Second Respondent.

9. Further and/or alternative relief.”

[33] On 11 July 2024, Minaar AJ granted the order in favour of the First Applicant.
The order reads as follows:

1. The status quo as it existed prior to 30 June 2024, in respect
of qualifications 50480, is extended pending the decision of
the fourth respondent to extend, replace or realign the
qualification with a new qualification, whichever the case
may be
2. The cost of the application are reserved, pending the
determination of Part B.

[34] In respect of the application for intervention , the learned judge granted the
following order:

13

1. The second (intervening) applicant’s joinder application is struck from the
roll for lack of agency; and
2. The second (intervening) applicant is to pay the costs of the respondents
relating to the joint application on an attorney and client scale, which shall
include the costs of the hearing on 10 and 11 July 2024.

[35] The intervening Applicant set the matter down on the normal court roll, seeking
an interim relief as set out in the notice of motion. I now address the legal principles
foundational to leave to intervene and the facts the applicant relies upon for the relief
sought.

Legal Principles governing application to intervene

[36] Intervention applications are governed by Rule 12 of the Uniform Rules . It
provides:

12. Intervention of persons as plaintiffs or defendants

“Any person entitled to join as a plaintiff or liable to be joined as a defendant in any
action may, on notice to all parties, at any stage of the proceedings, apply for leave to
intervene as a plaintiff or a defendant. The court may, upon such application, make
such order, including any order as to costs, and give such directions as to further
procedure in the action as to it may seem meet.”

[37] The test for joinder is well established. It is that a party must have a direct and
substantial legal interest that may be affected prejudicially by the judgment of the court
in the proceedings concerned 1. In Bowring NO v Vrededorp Properties CC and
Another,2 Brand JA articulated the test for joinder of necessity, which is also equally
applicable to an application for intervention, as follows:

'...The substantial test is whether the party that is alleged to be a necessary party for
purposes of joinder has a legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation, which may

1 See Judicial Service Commission v Cape Bar Council 2013 (1) SA 170 (SCA) paras 11-12; and
Bowring NO v Vrededorp Properties CC 2007 (5) SA 391 (SCA) para 21.

Bowring NO v Vrededorp Properties CC 2007 (5) SA 391 (SCA) para 21.
2 Bowring NO v Vrededorp Properties CC and Another 2007 (5) SA 391 (SCA).

14

be affected prejudicially by the judgment of the Court in the proceedings concerned
...'.3

[38] In Minmetals Logistics Zhejiang Co Ltd v The Owners and Underwriters of the MV
Smart and Another4 , the Supreme Court of Appeal held that:

‘…A direct and substantial interest means an interest in the subject matter of the
litigation, not a mere financial or academic interest. If a party has a direct and
substantial interest, it is a necessary party and should be joined unless the court is
satisfied that it has waived the right to be joined’.5

[39] In SA Riding for the Disabled Association v Regional Land Claims
Commissioner & Others6 Jafta J, writing for the unanimous court , articulated the test
for intervention as follows:

‘It is now settled that an applicant for intervention must meet the direct and
substantial interest test in order to succeed. What constitutes a direct and
substantial interest is the legal interest in the subject-matter of the case which could
be prejudicially affected by the order of the Court. This means that the applicant
must show that it has a right adversely affected or likely to be affected by the order
sought. But the applicant does not have to satisfy the court at the stage of
intervention that it will succeed. It is sufficient for such applicant to make allegations
which, if proved, would entitle it to relief.

If the applicant shows that it has some right which is affected by the order issued,
permission to intervene must be granted. For it is a basic principle of our law that
no order should be granted against a party without affording such party a
pre-decision hearing. This is so fundamental that an order is generally taken to be
binding only on parties to the litigation.


3 Ibid para 21.
4 2025 (1) SA 392 (SCA).
5 Ibid para 14.
6 2017 (5) SA 1 (CC).

15

Once the applicant for intervention shows a direct and substantial interest in the
subject-matter of the case, the court ought to grant leave to intervene. In
Greyvenouw CC this principle was formulated in these terms:

“In addition, when, as in this matter, the applicants base their claim to
intervene on a direct and substantial interest in the subject -matter of the
dispute, the Court has no discretion: it must allow them to intervene because
it should not proceed in the absence of parties having such legally
recognised interests.”’7


[40] The court has wide discretion regarding this issue. In exercising its discretion
to grant leave to intervene, the Court must determine whether the applicant has a
direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the litigation.

The Applicant’s Contentions

[41] In the founding affidavit, the Applicant asserts that the purpose of this
application is to place the facts from the viewpoint of a training provider, as opposed
to that of the quality assurance entity.

[42] The Applicant asserts that it is a registered training institution under SAPFTC,
and therefore, it has a locus standi in this matter. It also states that it is a training
provider for approximately 390 accredited training providers, along with an additional
120 providers currently undergoing the accreditation process. The Applicant asserts
that the First Applicant accredits all training manuals used by these providers . In
addition to its training services, the Applicant also operates as a dealer in arms and
ammunition.


[43] The Applicant asserts that the expiry date of the certificate of accreditation is
30 June 2024 and that the deponent was advised that the First Applicant did not issue
certificates beyond 30 June 2024 unless the qualification was extended. This was
done to align the date with the qualification's expiry.

7 Ibid para 9 – 11.

16


[44] The Applicant puts the following facts:

a. It is a leading training provider that has played a crucial role in helping to draft
a realigned qualification, due to its experience and presence in the training
sector. Therefore, its livelihood and that of its employees depend on the
legislative framework. If it cannot train legally, it will cease to exist.

b. The applicant’s training material is accredited by the First Applicant . The
applicant sells training manuals that are accredited by other training providers,
which do not have their accredited material, but are accredited trainers. These
accredited trainers and training facilities conduct accredited training using the
applicant's material.

c. If a person wishes to possess a firearm for personal or business use, they must
undergo accredited training and be issued a training provider certificate by the
entity that provided the training.

d. The training provider uploads details of the training onto the learner
management system of the first applicant.

e. If the training provider is compliant with the accreditation requirements of the
first applicant—that is, the training material is accredited, and training has been
completed and certified by the training provider —then the applicant issues
what is known as a statement of results. Only when the First applicant has
stated the result may the learner apply for a competency certificate, as
contemplated by Section 9 of the Firearms Control Act.

f. Only after the use of the issue of a competency certificate, a person may either
apply for an individual firearm licence to be issued in their name or may
possess a business firearm licence in terms of section 20 of the Firearms
Control Act.

g. For a Security Service provider to issue a firearm to a registered security officer,
the officer must hold a competency certificate.

17

h. The first applicant requested the minister on 11 June 2022 to extend the
qualification 54880 in terms of the government Gazette number 50742. The
request was never answered.

i. On 13 June 2024 at 1:30pm, the First respondent allocated all qualifications
under the occupational qualification sub -framework to SETAs. The unilateral
decision was made without giving notice to the first applicant or the two training
providers, including the second applicant. This directly affects not only the
rights of all training providers accredited to the first respondent, including the
first applicant, but also the prospects of all potential new competency certificate
applicants seeking to possess o r use a firearm for business purposes.
Therefore, a review of Part B of this decision by the first respondent and the
fourth respondent is being sought.

[45] The Applicant states that , according to the First and Second Respondents'
attorneys, the QCTO, SASSETA, and SAQA recognise that the training provided by
any registered training provider that commenced before 30 June 2024 is valid and may
be completed up until 30 June 2027.

[46] The Applicant submits that the Minister's failure to extend the qualification
means that its validly ended on 30 June 2024.

[47] The Applicant further submitted that it is important to note that each step in the
training referred to above takes approximately 2 days, which means the pool of
prospective applicants who were registered prior to 30 June 2024 budgeted for is very
small and does not constitute a sustainable source of income for accredited training
providers and will diminish rapidly.

[48] It is submitted that in the absence of an extension of this qualification by the
Minister, no new firearm training may take place . The consequences of this will be
devastating not only to the First Applicant but also to hundreds of training providers ,
such as the applicant in this application, who will have no business and will be unable

such as the applicant in this application, who will have no business and will be unable
to provide accredited training. They will be forced to cease trading and close their
businesses.

18

[49] The Applicant states that the economic impact on, among other things, firearm
training institutions and license dealers (there are over 800 such license dealers) could
be potentially disastrous. Firearm dealers rely heavily on the sale of firearms,
ammunition, and related accessories. If a person cannot obtain a licence for a firearm
due to a lack of competence, there will be no firearms industry.

[50] In conclusion, the Applicant stated that it is most important that an extension be
granted to the qualification until a review has taken place of the Minister's failure to
extend the qualification's validity or until a new, realigned qualification is implemented.

[51] It was submitted on behalf of the Applicant that the original relief sought in
paragraph 4 was cured by the interim order granted in favour of the First Applicant on
11 July 2024.

The Respondents’ Contentions

[52] The First to Third Respondents argue that the Applicant has not shown a direct
and substantial legal interest in the First Respondent’s main application.

[53] The Respondents further contend that the “joinder” application is irregular, as
the First Applicant and the intervening Applicant advance vastly different cases and
causes of action. The Respondents believe that the true purpose is to attempt to
remedy the fatal deficiencies in the original urgent application brought on 18 June 2024
by the First Applicant, and that is an impermissible abuse of process.

[54] The Respondents argued further that the matter had become moot as the
Court granted an order maintaining the status quo pending the decision of the Fourth
Respondent to extend, replace or realign the qualification with a new qualification.

[55] The Respondents argue that the founding papers do not make out any case for
review relief or advance any grounds in support of a review. The Minister has stated
that no decision has been taken at this stage, and any challenge is premature. There

that no decision has been taken at this stage, and any challenge is premature. There
is also no reliance on either the principle of legality or the Promotion of Administrative
Justice Act 3 of 2000 (“PAJA”). As such, there are no prospects of success in Part B

19

and no basis to justify the relief sought in Part A. In the absence of a right, there is no
remedy.

Analysis

[56] In order for the Applicant to succeed in this matter, it must establish a direct
and substantial interest in the proceedings.

[57] The issue this court must decide is whether, based on the facts presented by
the intervening party, it can be determined that they have a direct and substantial
interest in the main application.


[58] The Applicant, recognised as a lead trainer, is registered with the First
Applicant. It has stated in its founding papers that it could suffer significant financial
losses if the application is not granted. Based on the facts presented by the intervening
Applicant, it is clear that the Applicant’s motive for participating in these proceedings
is financial interest.

[59] Moreover, at no point does the intervening Applicant elucidate its direct interest
in its founding affidavit or reply. It is only in the heads of argument that the intervening
Applicant attempts to address the requisite substantial interest. Consequently, the
intervening Applicant fails to meet the necessary criteria to substantiate its claim.

[60] In any event , the relief sought by the intervening applicant regarding the
extension of the qualification was addressed by the order of Minaar J.
[61] Furthermore, the Applicant does not state how the outcome of the application
will prejudice them. In the main application, the First Applicant outlines the purpose of
the Application as follows:

“ The purpose of this application is to obtain urgent interim relief in part
A of this application to be able to quality assure the qualification 50480
and SAQA title of “ Further Education and Training Certificate; Firearm
Training, pending the finalisation of PART B to review and set aside a
decision of QCTO not to consider PFTC's realigned qualification for 50

20

480, and to review the decision of the QCTO to delegate the qualification
to SASSETA communicated to the applicant on 13 June 2024”

[62] The First Applicant is seeking a declaratory order to affirm that they retain
authority over the mandate for qualification 50480 and that this mandate will remain
valid until Part B of this application is finalised. The intervening Applicant, on the other
hand, seeks to review and set aside the Minister’s decision not to extend the
qualification pending finalisation of, alternatively, publication of an alternate realigned
qualification and review of the First Respondent’s decision to delegate the assurance
function for qualification 50480 to the Second Respondent.

[63] The Applicant presents a completely different case from the relief sought by the
First Applicant.

[64] The R espondents argued that the applicant ’s case does not depend on the
determination of the same issues of law and fact as in the main application . In its
replying affidavit, the intervening Applicant refutes the claim that it is pursuing entirely
distinct relief. However, it subsequently acknowledges that there is a shared interest
in the ongoing litigation. It is not sufficient to merely have a common interest in the
controversy, which is indirect.

[65] Consequently, the application for intervention is refused. In the result I make
the following order:

1. The Application to intervene is dismissed.
2. The Applicant is to pay the First to Third Respondents ’ costs, which shall
include the costs of counsel on scale C


__
FLATELA LULEKA
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT, GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA

21

This Judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties and or
parties’ representatives by email and by being uploaded to CaseLines. The date and
time for the hand down is deemed to be 10h00 on 01 August 2025.


Appearances
Counsel for the Intervening Party: Adv Snyman SC
Instructed by: MJ Hood & Associates

Counsel First to Third Respondents: Adv R Tshehlo
Instructed by: Cheadle Thompson & Haysom Inc

Date of the Hearing: 16 October 2024
Date of the Judgement: 01 August 2025