REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case Number: 32482/2020
In the matter between:
ABEGAIL NTOMBIKHONA BOIKHUTSO Applicant
and
PGC GROUP (PTY) LTD First Respondent
WORKERS LIFE MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD Second Respondent
PGC INVESTMENT HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD Third Respondent
WORKERS LIFE DIRECT (PTY) LTD Fourth Respondent
In re:
PGC GOUP (PTY) LTD First Plaintiff
WORKERS LIFE MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PTY) LTD Second Plaintiff
PGC INVESTMENT HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD Third Plaintiff
WORKERS LIFE DIRECT (PTY) LTD Fourth Plaintiff
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO
4 March 2026 __
DATE SIGNATURE
2
and
ZWILENKOSI REUBEN MEDLETSHE First Defendant
ABEGAIL NTOMBIKHONA BOIKHUTSO Second Defendant
JUDGMENT: LEAVE TO APPEAL
DOMINGO, AJ
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal brought by the applicant against the
judgment and order delivered by me on 31 October 2025.
[2] The respondents opposed the application for leave to appeal.
[3] The test for the granting of leave to appeal pertinent to the present matter is set
out in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 as follows:
“ (1) Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of
the opinion that:
(a) (i) the leave would have a reasonable prospect of success or
(ii) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard,
including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration.”
[4] Thus, in considering a leave to appeal it may only be given where the judge is of
the opinion that there are reasonable prospects that another court may come to
a different conclusion.
[5] The respondents opposed the application on the basis that I had not erred in the
findings and that there are no prospects that another court may come to a
different conclusion.
[6] Having read the papers and having heard both counsels, I had considered the
issues raised by the applicant in this leave to appeal in my coming to a decision
3
on the urgent application matter. I have dealt with many of the issues raised in
the application in my judgment.
[7] I am of the view that there are reasonable prospects that another court may come
to a different conclusion in regard to the interpretation of s18(2) of the Superior
Courts Act, therefore I grant the leave to appeal.
[8] In regard to the appeal against the cost order, I admit I had erred in not providing
reasons for the cost order granted and it was indeed a material oversight on my
part. The respondents through email correspondence had offered to the
applicant, that they were prepared to seek an alternative cost order as follows:
“The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of this application including the costs
of council on scale C.” This cost order offer was submitted by the respondents
on the day of the hearing of the leave to appeal. It was vehemently rejected and
opposed by the applicant, who averred that I could not change my cost order at
this stage. Having heard both counsels, I am of the view that this matter should
fall to be decided by the appeal court.
[9] In regard to the costs of this application, the respondents have submitted that
they not only seek that the applicant’s leave to appeal be dismissed, with costs,
but also that the applicant pay the respondents costs of the “notice of appeal”
and “affidavit in terms of section 18(4) of the Superior Courts Act” which the
respondents averred that the applicant has not formally withdraw n, has
effectively abandoned and it is also submitted by the respondents that there is
no reason why the applicant should not be ordered to pay the costs thereof. The
matter of costs I will leave to be decided by the appeal court.
[10] Accordingly, I make the following order:
10.1 Leave to appeal to the Full Court of the Gauteng Division is hereby
granted.
10.2 Costs are to be the costs in the appeal.
W DOMINGO
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
PRETORIA
Date of Hearing: 26 February 2026
Date of Judgment: 4 March 2026
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant:
For the Respondent:
ADV P MBANA instructed by FENYANE & ASSOCIATES
INC C/O TIDK ATTORNEYS INC
ADV L HOLLANDER instructed by LOA INCORPORATED
ATTORNEYS C/O HILLS INCORPORATED
4
5