REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO.: 60924/21
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NOY
(3) REVISED: NO i .
Date: 12 August 2025 E van der Schyff :
In the matter between:
THE NATIONAL ENERGY REGULATOR
OF SOUTH AFRICA Applicant
and
TETRA4 (PTY) LTD Respondent
In re:
TETRA4 (PTY) LTD Applicant
and :
THE NATIONAL ENERGY REGULATOR First Respondent
THE MINISTER OF MINERAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY _ Second Respondent
2
ne
JUDGMENT
a
Van der Schyff J
(1] The applicant, NERSA, filed an application for leave to appeal against the judgment
and order handed down on 2 May 2025. :
[2] The application for leave to appeal is essentially based on the applicant's contention
that this court erred in its interpretative exercise and the manner in which it applied i
the provisions of the Gas Act 48 of 2001 (the Gas Act). The grounds of appeal
essentially embody a repetition of NERSA’s case when the application was initially
heard. | handed down a written judgment explaining the reasons underpinning the
order. There is no need to repeat those reasons here.
[3] After considering the“grounds of appeal raised and the applicable law, particularly
the definition of the term ‘gas’ as contained in the Gas Act, | am not of the opinion
that the jurisdictional factor to grant leave to appeal as prescribed in section
17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, is met.
[4] The term ‘gas’ is defined to mean “all hydrocarbon gases transported by pipeline,
including natural gas”. No additional definition defines ‘natural gas’, and it must
therefore be read as ‘natural gas transported by pipeline.’ The judiciary’s function is
separate from the legislature’s function. If, through scientific development, the need
arises to regulate aspects of the gas industry outside the ambit of the ‘piped gas
industry’ that is currently regulated through the Gas Act, the legislature must enact
the necessary legislation to regulate those aspects. | am, therefore, not of the
opinion that ‘the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success’.
(5) This.leaves the question as to whether some other compelling reason exists why the
appeal should be heard. No conflicting judgments exist on the point. The process of
amending the Gas Act is in progress. The mere fact that complex issues had to be
2
3
considered does not in itself constitute a compelling reason for an appeal to be
heard.
ORDER
In the result, the following order is granted:
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs on scale C. The
costs include the costs of two counsel.
-E van der Schyff
Judge of the High Court
Delivered: This judgment is handed down electronically by uploading it to the electronic file of
this matter on CaseLines. .
For the applicant: Adv. M. Oosthuizen SC
With: ‘ Adv. J. Rust SC ]
Instructed by: Faskens Incorporated i
For the first respondent: Adv. N. Maenetjie SC :
With: Adv. R. Tshetlo
Adv. S. Mashiane
Instructed by: ; Cheadle, Thompson & Haysom
Incorporated
Date of the hearing: 4 August 2025
Date of judgment: 12 August 2025
3