IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
ee :
Case number: 57373/2017
Date of hearing: 5 August 2025
Date delivered: 6 August 2025
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
(1) REPORTABLE: Y28/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES: ¥@5/NO ,
(3) REVISED
DATE SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
THE MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
FOR HEALTH, GAUTENG Applicant
and
YB OBO RP Respondent
JUDGMENT
SWANEPOEL J:
1
[1] The applicant seeks leave to appeal against my judgment dated
12 May 2025. The applicant also seeks condonation for the late filing of
the application for leave to appeal. The respondent does not oppose the
application for condonation, but seeks a costs order in that application.
[2] Briefly, the background to the filing of the application for leave to
appeal is the following:
[2.1] Following on the delivery of my judgment on 12 May 2025,
the Director of Litigation in the Department of Health (“the
Department”) received a memorandum from the Senior Legal
Administrator requesting payment authorization of the judgment
debt. The Director refused to approve payment, on the basis of
“dissatisfaction with our representative, Counsel at that time.” (sic)
[2.2] On 29 May 2025 the Director instructed the State Attorney
to launch the appeal. The State Attorney was evidently of the view
that there were minimal prospects of success on appeal, and it
conveyed that view to the Department. Nonetheless, the
Department was determined to appeal, and on 25 June 2025 its
Senior Legal Administration officer: Legal Services addressed a
memorandum to the Head of the Department in motivation of a
request to terminate the services of the State Attorney, and to
appoint private attorneys.
[2.3] The memorandum records the following:
2
“Following our instructions, the State Attorney's Office briefed the
same counsel, who subsequently prepared a memo indicating
that the defendant's chances of success were minimal.”
[2.4] The legal officer's recommendation to appoint private
attorneys was approved, and on 1 July 2025 the applicant's current
attorneys were instructed. On 7 July 2025 the attorneys sought
access to CaseLines from the State Attorney, which was facilitated
on 8 July 2025.
[2.5] The application for leave to appeal was delivered on 23 July
2025.
[3] It is somewhat ironic that condonation is sought in an application
for leave to appeal, on the basis that the applicant had initially been
advised that the chances of success on appeal were minimal, and that it
had to terminate its attorneys and find attorneys who were of a different
view. After all, one of the aspects relevant to condonation is the prospect
of success on appeal. Nonetheless, | accept that the applicant did not
agree with its erstwhile attorneys, and that it is entitled to pursue its case
as it deems fit. Also, the respondent does not oppose the application for
condonation, and in fact has agreed to condonation being granted, on
condition that it is granted costs. | shall, therefore, grant condonation for
the late filing of the application.
3