IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 097482/2024
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED
In the matter between:
THE SOUTH AFRICAN PROFESSIONAL FIREARMS APPLICANT
TRAINERS COUNCIL NPC
and
THE QUALITY COUNCIL FOR TRADES FIRST RESPONDENT
AND OCCUPATIONS
THE SAFETY AND SECURITY SECTORAL SECOND RESPONDENT
EDUCATION TRAINING AUTHORITY
THE SOUTH AFRICAN QUALIFIACTIONS AUTHORITY THIRD RESPONDENT
VIJAYEN NAIDOO CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF FOURTH
RESPONDENT
THE QUALITY COUNCIL FOR TRADES AND OCCUPATIONS
THAMSANQA MADONTSWA FIFITH RESPONDENT
CEO OF THE SAFETY AND SECURITY SECTORAL EDUCATION TRAINING
AUTHORITY
THE NATIONAL COMMISSIONER OF THE SIXTH RESPONDENT
SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES
JUDGMENT
MOTHA, J:
(1) This is an ex -tempore judgment. Having abandoned some
of its prayers including the contempt of court prayer, the
applicant brings an urgent application for an interim order
interdicting the first and second respondents from
developing and implementing an occupational skills
programme for firearm training, pending the finalization of
Part B, under case number 066460/2024.
(2) The respondents submitted that this matter is not urgent
and the there is nothing unlawful about the development of a
skills programme. Secondly, they submit ted that the
applicant has not established a case for an interim interdict
in its founding affidavit . To avoid going awry, a brief loo k at
the statutory framework is called for.
Brief statutory framework
(3) The National Qualifications Framework Act 67 of 2008
(NQF Act) came into effect on 1 June 2009, and replaced the
South African Qualifications Authority Act 58 of 1995
(SAQA Act). The NQF Act established a ten -level NQF,
divided into three distinct frameworks :
• for General and Further Education and Training ;
• for Higher Education , and
• for Trades and Occupations. 1
(4) Each of the sub -frameworks is overseen by its quality
council. In terms of Section 26 of the NQF Act, read with
1 Answering affidavit para 112
sections 26G and 26 H ( 2) of the Skills Development Act
(SDA), the quality council for Trades and Occupations sub -
framework is the Quality Council for Trades and Occupations
(QCTO) , the first respondent . The QCTO was established by
section 26G of the SDA and its functions are set out in
section 26H of the SDA. For our purposes, it is important to
mention that Section 26I of the SDA makes provision for the
QCTO to delegate any of its functions to:
• the executive officer of the QCTO ;
• a committee of the QCTO ;
• the national artisan moderation body established in
terms of 26A ;
• a SETA ;
• any other suitable body.
(5) The delegation of power does not divest QCTO of the
delegated function. It may review, amend or set aside any
decision under delegation.
(6) In terms of section 9 (1) (a) of the SDA, the Minister has
the power to establish Sector Education and Training
Authorities (SETAs), which , in terms of section 9 A ( 1) of the
SDA , she may amalgamate into two or more SETAs. That is
how the second respondent, the Safety and Security
Sectorial Education Training Authority (SASSETA), was
established. The Minister amalgamated the Diplomacy
Intelligence, Defence and Trade and Industry SETA and the
Police, Private Security, Legal and Correctional Services
SETA to form SETA 19, SASSETA.
(7) In 2013, QCTO delegated the quality assurance function
for qualification 50480 to the applicant, The South African
Professional Firearm Trainers Council (PFTC). It is
noteworthy that most qualifications on the QCTO are quality
assured by SETAs, under delegated powers from the QCTO.
(8) To avoid prolixity, I will not discuss the role delegated to
PFTC, save to say that it does not prevent the respondents
from developing a skills development programme.
(9) The Law on urgency
It is well known that urgent applications implicate Rule 6(12)(b) of
the Uniform Rules of Court, which reads:
“In every affidavit filed in support of any application under
paragraph (a) which refers to urgent applications of this subrule,
the applicant must set forth explicitly the circumstances which is
averred render the matter urgent and the reasons why the
applicant claims that applicant could not be afforded substantial
redress at a hearing in due course. ”
(10) The applicant’s grounds for urgency are listed as follows:
“Firstly , the conduct of first and second respondents is in
contempt of an existing court order. I am advised that
contempt is always a matter of urgency. (the applicant has
since abandoned this ground).
Secondly, it is clear that the first respondent is considering a
realigned qualification there is no need to develop the skills
programme.
(11) The skills programme may, and in all probability, will lead
to the issue of fraudulent training certificates endangering
public safety.
(12) Public safety is always urgent. If training is not properly
quality assured, then fraudulent certificates will be issued by
unscrupulous firearm trainers putting the safety of the public
at risk.
(13) The South African police services in the form of national
commissioner has recognised the applicant as the quality
assurer as part of its new digital system that is the subject
of three 100 million rent tender and in this regard I refer to
the letter of award addressed to the successful tender is an
extra
(14) the South African Service are busy designing and
implementing a system that has taken since 2019 and
through the issue of a court order to design and commence
with implementation and which has a value of 300 million.
(15) in terms of the letter for from the national commissioner
this process started in April 2024.
(16) Should the second respondent establish a skills program
for fire armed training it will not be recognized by or be part
of South African police services system which will result in a
wastage of public money.
(17) I'm advised that a wastage of public money is a ground
for agency.”
(18) On 11 July 2024, the applicant obtained an order which
simply read: “1. The status quo as it existed prior to 30 June
2024 in respect of qualification 50480 is extended pending
the decision of the fourth respondent [the Minister] to
extend, replace or realign the qualification with a new
qualification, whichever the case may be.”
(19) It bears mentioning that the qualification 50480 and the
development of skills programme are not the same. The
applicant has failed to set out reasons why the interim
interdict of the development of the skills programme is
urgent. Since the development of the skills programme is in
an inchoate and nascent stage, the applicant can obtain
substantial redress at a hearing in due course. Th e applicant
has known about this development of the skills programme
since 1 August 2024.
(20) Furthermore, and perhaps that is the reason why it
abandoned the contempt of court application (after putting
the respondent through the expense of answering this
issue), the skills development does not replace nor affect
the qualification 50480.
(21) I pause to highlight the distinction between a skills
programme and a qualification:
(22) In terms of OQSF Policy, the skills programme is:
“5.9.1… a QCTO -accredited learning program that is
occupationally based and which, when completed, will
constitute credits towards a qualification or part
qualification registered on the NQF.”
(23) On the other hand, in terms of the OQSF Policy, a
qualification is:
“5.7.1 … a qualification associated with a trade,
occupation or profession resulting from work -based
learning end consisting of knowledge you need standards,
practical unit standards and work experience unit
standards.
(24) Counsel for the applicant submit ted that the matter is
urgent because the skills programme would be complete d by
November 2024. This submission is without merit. One needs
to have regard to the process as outlined. It has four stages,
namely: application, development, evaluation and approval
and registration. For instance, in phase three (Evaluation
and Approval), which ha d not been reached at the hearing of
this matter, the programme gets evaluated , moderated and
presented to the internal qualifications committee for
approval. Then it gets published in the government gazette
for 21 days to allow for public comments. The QCTO will
recommend the programme to SAQA for registration . Before
registration , SAQA embarks on its processes to stress test
the programme .
(25) With all that said, the applicant has failed to establish
urgency. To that end, I can do no better than to refer to
paragraph 72 of the answering affidavit:
“This misses the point - the skills programme, irrespective of
when it is finalized, is a separate, valid process that does
not affect the status of qualification 50480…”
(26) That is the end of urgency for the applicant since their
interests are not being affected by the development of a
skills programme.
(27) The applicant does not set forth why it would not find
substantial redress at a trial in due course. Courts have had
occasions to look at this subrule. In the matter of East Rock
Trading 7 Pty Ltd versus Eagle Valley Granite 2, the court
2 (11/33767)[2011] ZAGP JHC 196 (23 September 2011)
said :
“T he import thereof is that the procedure set out in rule
6(12) is not there for taking. An applicant has to set forth
explicitly the circumstances which he avers render the
matter urgent. More importantly, the applicant must state
the reasons why he claims that he cannot be afforded
substantial redress at a hearing in due course. The question
of whether a matter is sufficiently urgent to be enrolled and
heard as an urgent application is underpinned by the issue
of absence of substantial redress in an application in due
course …”3
(28) As stated in paragraph 73 of the answering affidavit:
“There is nothing unlawful about the development of the
skills programme . It is in accordance with the statutory
mandates and the policies and procedures of SASSETA and
the QCTO . Further , the 11 July 2024 order does not
interdict SAS SE TA nor QCTO from taking any step in the
development of the skills program me .”
(29) The applicant has not established urgency, in the
result , the matter is struck off the roll with costs on scale B.
Order
1. The matter is struck off the roll with costs on scale B.
M.P. MOTHA
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT, PRETORIA
Date of hearing: 2 October 2024
Date of judgment: 2 October 2024
3 Supra para 6
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant: Adv M Snyman SC instructed by MJ Hood
and Associates
For the 1st, 2nd, 4th & 5th Respondents: Adv R. Tshetlo and Z Ngakane instructed by
Cheadle Thompson & Hayson Inc .
Attorneys.