About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAGPPHC 259
|
|
Liberty Fighters Network and Another v Registrar of the High Court Gauteng Division, Pretoria and Another (Leave to Appeal) (2025/061551; 2022/30280; 2022/030165) [2026] ZAGPPHC 259 (16 March 2026)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA)
Case No: 2025/061551
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED: YES
DATE
16 March 2026
SIGNATURE
In
the matter between:
LIBERTY
FIGHTERS
NETWORK
1
st
Applicant
REYNO
DAWID DE BEER
NO
2
nd
Applicant
and
REGISTRAR
OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
1
st
Respondent
COURT
MANAGER OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG
DIVISION,
PRETORIA
2
nd
Respondent
In
Re:
Case
No: 2022/30280
LIBERTY
FIGHTERS NETWORK
1
st
Applicant
REYNO
DAWID DE
BEER
2
nd
Applicant
and
SOUTH
AFRICAN HEALTH PRODUCTS REGULATORY AUTHORITY
Respondent
In
Re:
Case
No: 2022/030165
LIBERTY
FIGHTERS
NETWORK
1
st
Applicant
REYNO
DE
BEER
2
nd
Applicant
NICOLE
CANDICE
LAWRENCE
3
rd
Applicant
BROTHERSIT
CC
4
th
Respondent
and
SOUTH
AFRICAN RESERVE
BANK
1
st
Respondent
MINISTGER
OF
FINANCE
2
nd
Respondent
NATIONAL
TREASURY
DEPARTMENT
3
rd
Respondent
PRESIDENT
OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
4
th
Respondent
FIRST
NATIONAL
BANK
5
th
Respondent
JUDGMENT: APPLICATION
FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
(The
matter was heard in open court on 13 March 2026. Judgment was
reserved and uploaded onto the electronic file of the matter
in
CaseLines and the date of the judgment is deemed to be the date of
uploading thereof onto CaserLines).
BEFORE:
HOLLAND-MUTER J:
[1]
A party aggrieved by a judgment granted in a high court may apply for
leave to appeal to the court in terms of section 17(1)(a)
of the
Superior Court Act 10 of 2013 (the “Act”).
[2]
The provisions of section 17(1)(a) states that Leave to Appeal may
only be given where the Judge concerned is of the view that:
(a)(i)
the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or
(b)
(ii) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be
heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under
consideration.
[3]
Having heard the representatives on behalf of all the parties
involved and perusing the application for leave to appeal, the
court
is of the view that there is no reasonable prospect of success in
another court and that there is no compelling reason why
the appeal
should be heard by another court.
[4]
The count has again considered all relevant issues regarding costs
and remains of the view that the granted cost order be retained.
There is the court’s view no constitutional aspect involved and
therefore no reason to consider the
Biowatch Principle
and
that there is no reason why costs should not follow success. The
court remains further of the view that the scale of the costs
order
should remain on an attorney and client scale, the costs to include
the costs of two counsel where appointed.
HOLLAND-MUTER
J
Judge
of the Pretoria High Court
16
March 2026
The
application for leave to appeal was heard on Friday 13 March 2026 and
judgment was uploaded onto CaseLines on Monday 16 March
2026.
Appearances:
Applicants:
Mr R De Beer (in person)
SARB:
Adv E Kromhout
SAHPRA:
Adv J Berger & Adv Y S Ntloko