1
IN TH E HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
{GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
D ELETE WHICHEVER IS NO T APPLICABLE
0) REPOR T AB LE: ¥ES/NO
(2) OF INTERE S T TO O TH ER JUD GES: ¥ES/NO
(3) REV ISED
D ATE: 18 September2025
S IGNAT U RE: ..... .
In the m atter between :
MAREVA, JAMES
And
DEPARTMENT O F MINERAL RESOURCES
AND ENERGY
MSIZA, DAVID N.O (IN HIS OFF ICIAL
CAPACITY AS CHIE F INSPECTOR OF M INES
IN THE DEP AR TMEN T OF MINE R AL
RESOURCES AND ENERGY)
Case No. 001113/2025
APPLICAN T
FIRST R ESPONDENT
SECOND RESPONDEN T
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND
TRAINING
2
THIRD RESPONDENT
Coram:
Heard on:
Delivered:
MILLAR J
Millar J
15 September 2025
18 September 2025 -This judgment was handed down electronically
by circulation to the parties' representatives by email, by being
uploaded to the CaseLines system of the GD and by release to
SAF LII. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 09H00 on
18 September 2025.
JUDGM EN T
[1] The applicant, Mr. Ma reva is an Engineering Superintendent emp loyed at a mine.
This application, opposed by the first and second respondents, is for two
declaratory orders and a mandamus relating to the issue to him of a Government
Certificate of Competency (GCC) in electrical engineering. The third respondent
gave notice of its intention to abide the decision of the court.
[2] The circumstances leading to this application are uncomplicated and largely
common cause. These concern the issue of a GCC. The relevant statutory
3
framework is to be found in the Mine Health and Safety Act1 and the regulations
promulgated in terms of section 98. Not necessary to set out the requirements for
the issue of a GCC as set out in regulation 28 read together with the guidelines
for implementation issued in respect thereof. For the reasons set out below it w ill
become apparent that this case turns not on compliance with the regulations but
on whether Mr. Mareva was accepted on 5 October 2012 to do his GCC or not.
[3] Mr. Mareva applied to the first respondent to be accepted as a candidate for the
GCC. On 5 October 2012, he received a letter from the first respondent's
Secretary of the Commission of Examiner's - Ms. Pienaar. The letter of 5 October
2012 reads "This is to certify that your qualifications comp ly with the prescribed
curriculum. It is suggested that you contact your company and requested[sic] to be
trained as [a} Junior Engineering [sic} on the company's Junior Engineering scheme."
[4] Mr. Mareva interpreted this letter as a formal acceptance of him. He then, on the
same day registered for the GCC examinations with the third respondent. He
received an admission permit and examination timetable, paid the required fees
and was subsequently granted entry to the examinations.
[5] He wrote and passed the examinations in Knowledge of Mines on 21 November
2014 and Plant Engineering and Works on 11 June 2015. He also began and
completed the practical work required for the GCC qualification and was issued
confirmation of this on 30 August 2017.
[6] On 5 September 2017 the Applicant applied to the Secretary of the Commission
of Examiners, for the issue of the GCC.
1 29 of 1996.
4
[7] On 15 November 2017 the Applicant received a letter from the Chairman of the
Commission of Examiners - Mr. Zondi - refusing the issue of the GCC. The
reason preferred for this was that Ms. Pienaar's letter did not constitute his
acceptance as a candidate. Reference was made to the internal documentation
which the first respondent indicated that it could not locate which Mr. Zondi
stated would be indicative of acceptance to do the GCC.
[8] On this ostensible basis, Mr. Mareva had written the examinations and comp leted
the practical training in circumstances where he was never enrolled in the first
place. His achievements were for nought, and he was required to redo everything,
only once he had been formally accepted.
[9] What followed was an attempt by Mr. Mareva to comply with what had been
suggested by Mr. Zondi. This too was unsuccessful primarily because the
university where he had written and passed the two examinations refused to
readmit him to redo the very courses he had already successfully completed.
[1 O] However, thereafter, on 14 June 2019, Mr. Zondi in his capacity as the
Chairperson of the Commission of Examiners wrote to Mr. Mareva. The letter was
headed ''APPLICATION FOR ACCEPTANCE AS A CANDIDA TE FOR THE
ENGINEERING CERT/FICA TE OF COMPETENCY EXAM/NATION FOR:
ELECTRICAL ENGINEER " and recorded that "You have been accepted as a candidate
for the abovementioned examination." The letter then proceeded to set out the subjects
for which he had been accepted and concluded with "The Chief Inspector of Mines will
grant the appropriate certificate to you when you have passed the subjects indicated."
(my underlining)
[11] This letter changed the position materially. It is common cause that Mr. Ma reva
only ever submitted one application for admission. This was the application made
5
on 5 October 2012 and so he could only have been accepted in terms of that
application.
[12] If, as had been previously indicated on 15 November 2017, he had not been
accepted pursuant to the application of 5 October 2012, then there was no basis
for him to be accepted in the absence of a new application.
[13] Can Ms Pienaar's letter in its terms be interpreted to constitute an acceptance?
It has been accepted that "interpretation is a unitary exercise that takes account of
text, context and purpose. "2
[14] The only basis for the acceptance as set out in the letter of 14 June 2019 is the
application of 5 October 2012. Furthermore, besides the academic requirements
for the GCC, there was the practical component. Mr. Mareva was accepted to
and completed both. Almost all the practical training done was done at his
employer and it is an engineer there who signed off on the completion of the
practical component.
[15] The reference in the letter to the companies junior engineering scheme was thus
not unusual nor was it read as being something different to what he was applying
for. Mr. Mareva, the university where he did the courses, and his emp loyer all
understood what the letter meant.
[16] It follows as a matter of common sense that Mr. Mareva had indeed been
accepted on 5 October 2012. The assertion that Ms Pienaar's letter was not an
acceptance letter, when considered through the lens of its contents and the
acceptance on 14 June 2019 is simply not sustainable.
[17] The consequence of the initial denial on 15 Novembe r 2017 that Mr. Mareva had
been accepted was that by the time that the first respondent accepted that he
had, he had already fulfilled all the requirements for the issue to him of the GCC .
He was at that stage at the earliest entitled to the issue of the GCC.
2 South African Nursing Council v Khanyisa Nursing School (Ply) Ltd 2024 ( 1) SA 103 (SCA) at para
[15].
6
(18] The attempt to compel him to rewrite the examinations he had already passed or
to redo the practical work he had successfully done was nothing more than a box
ticking exercise to synchronize the dates when these requirements were met to
be after the date of "acceptance".
(19] The respondents argued that Mr. Mareva had previously brought a review
application but had subsequently abandoned this in favour of the declaratory
orders sought in the present matter.
(20] Had the case turned only upon the refusal to issue the GCC as set out in the letter
of 15 November 20173 then this would have been a different matter. The refusal
would have been, subject to the internal appeal, a reviewable decision.
(21] This case however turns on the subsequent decision set out in the letter of 14
June 2019 and effective admission that Mr. Mareva had indeed been accepted
on 5 October 2012. This decision was not reviewable and the only appropriate
remedy that can be granted are the declaratory orders that have been sought
herein.4
(22] It was agreed by the parties that costs should follow the result and should be
awarded as between party and party. In view of the nature and importance of the
matter to Mr. Mareva I am persuaded that the engagement of senior counsel was
a wise and reasonable precaution and for that reason counsel's costs are to be
awarded on scale C.
[23] In the circumstances it is ordered:
(23.1) It is declared that the applicants Government Competency
Examination results for Legal Knowledge obtained on 21 Novembe r
2014 and Plant Engineering: Mines and Works obtained on 11 June
2015 are valid for purposes of the issue of a Government Competency
Certificate in Electrical Engineering.
4 Shell's Annandale Farm (Ply) Ltd v Commissioner, South African Revenue Service 2000 (3) SA 564
(CPD) at 232 G-H. This was a tax case, but the principle is of equal application in the instant case where
a "pragmatic approach" to the resolution of the dispute is apposite.
7
[23.2] It is declared that the applicant has fulfilled all the requirements for the
issue to him of a Government Competency Certificate in Electrical
Engineering.
[23.3] The first and second respondents are ordered to issue the applicant
Government Competency Certificate in Electrical Engineering with
effect from 14 June 2019
[23.4] The First and Second Respondents are ordered to pay the Applicant's
costs of the application on the scale as between part and party, the
costs of counsel to be taxed on scale C.
HEARD ON:
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON:
COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICAN T:
INSTRUC TED BY:
REFERENCE:
COUNSEL FOR THE 1sr & 2ND
RESPONDENTS:
INSTRUCTED BY:
REFERENCE:
A MILLAR
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
15 SEPTEMBER 2025
18 SEPTEMBER 2025
ADV. M MPSHE SC
MAOBA ATTORNEYS INC .
MR. M MAOBA
ADV. N MATIDZA
THE STATE ATTORNEY, PRETORIA
MR. M MATUBATUBA
THE 3RD RESPONDENT FILED A NOTICE TO ABIDE.