REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION , PRETORIA
Case Number: 32643/2021
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: YES
2026-02-16
DATE
In the matter between:
NATIONAL COMMISSIONER OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN
POLICE SERVICE
MINISTER OF POLICE
and
FORENSIC DAT A ANALYSTS (PTY) LTD
(Registration number: 1990/023867 /07)
INVESTIGATIVE SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD
(Registration number: 2006/00255 1/07)
SOLVE FORENSICS (PTY) LTD
(Registration number: 2010/018049/07)
JUDGMENT
First App licant
Second Applicant
First Respondent
Second Respondent
Third Respondent
2
POTTERILLJ
[1] Before me is an application for leave to appeal to the Full Court, alternatively
the Supreme Court of Appeal.
[2] The credibility findings in the judgment are not attacked. Accepting the version
of Mr Keating and Mr Mogajane together with all the facts leading up to 31 January
2020 and thereafter in essence being common cause, no other Court would
reasonably find that the oral agreement was not concluded.
[3] The finding that the National Commissioner of the South African Police Service
wrongfully failed to procure is not attacked. The finding that the interpretation of
section 7(3) of the SITA Act did not require SITA to procure the system and become
the owner of the IP and that SAPS could procure is not appealed against. There is
simply no necessity for the plaintiff to plead how the SAPS must procure. The finding
of an "emergency procurement" is not attacked. Rehashing the tender process is
based on no evidence and no Court will find that procurement had to go through the
tender process.
[4] There is in law nothing wrong with the respondents' (herein) particulars of claim.
It pleaded for specific performance, and in the alternative a claim of cancellation and
damages. There is no finding that the oral contract was terminated.
[5] It is not appealed against that impossibility must be pleaded to constitute a
defence. There was no evidence of what system SAPS was utilising now and whether
SAPS was operational.
[6] The fact that the licences were terminated does not lead to the result that the
systems could not be bought, or that the IP ceased to exist.
[7] The ground of appeal that the Court erred in ordering that the parties conclude
a contract, when the terms and conditions, rights and obligations remain undetermined
is simply incorrect. Both parties knew exactly what was agreed and the order relates
3
to the attorney to record the oral agreement (as amended) in writing. There is no
appeal against the finding that there were no implied terms and conditions.
[8] Furthermore, the other grounds raised need no addressing as they were fully
ventilated in the judgment and there are no reasonable prospects of success that
another Court would come to another conclusion.
(9) I am satisfied that the appeal would have no reasonable prospects of success.
No sound rational basis for the conclusion that there are prospects of success has
been shown.
(10) There are no compelling reasons why the matter should be heard in the
interests of justice. The amount of the claim does not support compelling reasons.
[11] The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs
of two counsel on scale C.
/ S.~TERILL
JUDGE O~COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
4
CASE NUMBER: 32643/2021
DATE OF HEARING: 13 February 2026
FOR THE APPLICANTS: ADV. B. ROUX SC
ADV. T. PILLAY
INSTRUCTED BY: Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr Inc.
FOR THE RESPONDENTS: ADV. R. MICHAU SC
ADV. C.P. WESLEY SC
INSTRUCTED BY: Charle Rossouw Attorneys
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16 February 2026